Extending the task–artifact framework with organizational learning

Over the past decade there has been an increased focus on the importance of contextual factors in all IT disciplines. At the same time, scholars have heeded the call for investigating the creation of more effective synergies between science and design. For example, the task–artifact (TA) framework was developed to support better utilization of behavioral, cognitive, and social science in Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) design. This framework is based on the general developmental pattern of human activities and technologiesteamed with two analytical tools for design. In this paper, we extend this framework from its original focus on individual and small group HCI to the organizational level utilizing organizational learning theory. This extension will (1) integrate relevant concepts and analysis drawn from the social sciences in order to guide design more effectively; (2) incorporate organizational level analysis, when we study information artifact design and appropriation; and (3) help organizations complete their learning circle. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Marie-Claude Boudreau,et al.  Accounting for the Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Technology: Theoretical Directions and Methodological Implications , 1999, Inf. Syst. Res..

[2]  Yrjö Engeström,et al.  Expansive Visibilization of Work: An Activity-Theoretical Perspective , 1999, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[3]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Organizational Learning: A Theory Of Action Perspective , 1978 .

[4]  Ola Henfridsson,et al.  Barriers to learning: on organizational defenses and vicious circles in technological adaptation , 2000 .

[5]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[6]  M. Tomasello.  The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition , 2000 .

[7]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Usability Engineering in Practice , 2002 .

[8]  Jakob E. Bardram,et al.  Scenario-based design of cooperative systems , 2000 .

[9]  P. Senge.  The fifth discipline : the art and practice of the learning organization/ Peter M. Senge , 1991 .

[10]  Daniel Robey,et al.  Merging the metaphors for organizational improvement: Business process reengineering as a component of organizational learning , 1995 .

[11]  Chris Argyris,et al.  Learning and Teaching: A Theory of Action Perspective , 1997 .

[12]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers , 1994, CACM.

[13]  P. Senge.  THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE , 1997 .

[14]  Les Gasser,et al.  A Design Theory for Systems That Support Emergent Knowledge Processes , 2002, MIS Q..

[15]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluationof organizational interfaces , 1988, CSCW '88.

[16]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice , 1995 .

[17]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Rituals in Information System Design , 1984, MIS Q..

[18]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of Human-Computer Interactions , 2000 .

[19]  Lev Vygotsky.  Mind in society , 1978 .

[20]  Weidong Xia,et al.  Grasping the complexity of IS development projects , 2004, CACM.

[21]  James D. Hollan,et al.  Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research , 2000, TCHI.

[22]  M. Hammer,et al.  Reengineering the Corporation , 1993 .

[23]  Delvin Grant,et al.  A wider view of business process reengineering , 2002, CACM.

[24]  David C. Brown,et al.  Reasoning with Design Rationale , 2000, AID.

[25]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[26]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. , 2000, Ergonomics.

[27]  Chris Argyris,et al.  Action science and organizational learning , 1995 .

[28]  M. Cole.  Cultural psychology: a once and future discipline? , 1996, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[29]  Roderick E. White,et al.  An Organizational Learning Framework : From Intuition to Institution Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[30]  Matthias Jarke,et al.  Scenarios in System Development: Current Practice , 1998, IEEE Softw..

[31]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  The task-artifact cycle , 1991 .

[32]  Brian T. Pentland,et al.  Information systems and organizational learning: The social epistemology of organizational knowledge systems , 1995 .

[33]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Usability Engineering: Scenario-based Development of Human-Computer Interaction , 2001 .

[34]  Zahir Irani,et al.  Business process reengineering: a survey of international experience , 2001, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[35]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[36]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations , 2011 .

[37]  Sandeep Purao,et al.  Situating evaluation in scenarios of use , 2004, CSCW.

[38]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use , 1996 .

[39]  Mark S. Ackerman,et al.  The Intellectual Challenge of CSCW: The Gap Between Social Requirements and Technical Feasibility , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[40]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Design Rationale as Theory , 2003 .

[41]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organization of Organizational Interfaces. , 1988 .

[42]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Infinite detail and emulation in an ontologically minimized HCI , 1990, CHI '90.

[43]  Dorothy E. Leidner,et al.  Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues , 2001, MIS Q..

[44]  W. Scott,et al.  Institutions and Organizations. , 1995 .

[45]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Becoming social: Expanding scenario-based approaches in HCI , 1996, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[46]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign , 2011 .

[47]  D. Schoen.  The Reflective Practitioner , 1983 .

[48]  M. Dodgson.  Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures , 1993 .

[49]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .