How to Use Information Technology for Cooperative Work: Development of Shared Technological Frames

Technological frames, participants’ assumptions about information technology (IT), and in particular about the usage of the technology for everyday cooperative work, are a relevant factor for IT related behavior. Incongruent technological frames are associated with problems during the application and use of a new IT in an organization. This paper presents a field study which applies a pre–post-design in a freight forwarding company. During face-to-face discussion the participating employees of the company negotiated agreements regarding the future usage of a new mobile technology system for every day cooperative work between dispatcher agents and truck drivers. To support the development of shared technological frames the moderation technique STWT (socio-technical walkthrough) was applied. The results describe the structural changes in technological frames, and show to what extent these were shared by the participants. Based on the results possibilities to improve support for the development of shared technological frames are discussed.

[1]  A. Strauss.  Work and the Division of Labor , 1985 .

[2]  Elizabeth Davidson,et al.  26 MAKING SENSE OF TECHNOLOGICAL FRAMES: Promise, Progress, and Potential , 2005 .

[3]  Kjeld Schmidt,et al.  Taking CSCW seriously , 1992, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[4]  A Gordon,et al.  Classification, 2nd Edition , 1999 .

[5]  Toomas Timpka,et al.  Organisational Policy and Shop-floor Requests in Design: Visualisation of the Argumentation behind an Information System for the Swedish Trade Union Movement , 2001, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[6]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Planning, Shared Mental Models, and Coordinated Performance: An Empirical Link Is Established , 1999, Hum. Factors.

[7]  H. Kelley,et al.  Effects of different conditions of acceptance upon conformity to group norms. , 1956, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[8]  Boaz Keysar.  Language users as problem solvers: Just what ambiguity problem do they solve? , 1998 .

[9]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Creative Controversy: Intellectual Challenge in the Classroom , 1992 .

[10]  C. Cooper,et al.  International review of industrial and organizational psychology , 1986 .

[11]  G. Stasser,et al.  Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion , 1985 .

[12]  Christian Heath,et al.  Collaboration and controlCrisis management and multimedia technology in London Underground Line Control Rooms , 1992, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[13]  E. Davidson.  A Technological Frames Perspective on Information Technology and Organizational Change , 2006 .

[14]  C. Burke,et al.  The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[15]  Thomas Herrmann,et al.  Socio-technical walkthrough: designing technology along work processes , 2004, PDC 04.

[16]  Joseph D. Novak,et al.  Learning creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools , 1998 .

[17]  Lawrence D. Freeman,et al.  The Management of Knowledge. , 1974 .

[18]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Learning from Notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation , 1992, CSCW '92.

[19]  P. Mayring.  Qualitative Content Analysis , 2000 .

[20]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[21]  Elizabeth J. Davidson,et al.  Technology Frames and Framing: A Socio-Cognitive Investigation of Requirements Determination , 2002, MIS Q..

[22]  Michael Khoo.  Community design of DLESE's collections review policy: a technological frames analysis , 2001, JCDL '01.

[23]  David Yuh Foong Law,et al.  Towards a strategy for sense-making of empirical knowledge management perceptions - the TFL methodology , 2003, 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the.

[24]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Perspective-Taking in Communication: Representations of Others' Knowledge in Reference , 1991 .

[25]  S. Puri.  Technological frames of stakeholders shaping the SDI implementation: A case study from India , 2006 .

[26]  Catherine E. Volpe,et al.  Defining Competencies and Establishing Team Training Requirements , 1995 .

[27]  Garold Stasser,et al.  The uncertain role of unshared information in collective choice. , 1999 .

[28]  Angela Lin,et al.  Framing implementation management , 2000, ICIS.

[29]  Philippe Rouchy,et al.  Co-Realisation: Towards a principled synthesis of ethnomethodology and participatory design , 2002, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[30]  Gloria Mark,et al.  Conventions and Commitments in Distributed CSCW Groups , 2002, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[31]  A. Strauss.  THE ARTICULATION OF PROJECT WORK: AN ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS , 1988 .

[32]  Memory and Knowledge , 2009 .

[33]  Helena Karsten,et al.  Converging paths to Notes: In search of computer-based information systems in a networked company , 1995, Inf. Technol. People.

[34]  F. J. Langdon,et al.  The Child's Conception of Space , 1967 .

[35]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  25 Years of Team Effectiveness in Organizations: Research Themes and Emerging Needs , 2005 .

[36]  Anthony Crawford.  Advancing business concepts in a JAD workshop setting - business reengineering and process redesign , 1994, Yourdon Press computing series.

[37]  Helena Karsten,et al.  User interpretations of future information system use: A snapshot with technological frames , 2007, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[38]  J. Mathieu,et al.  The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[39]  Thomas Herrmann,et al.  A modelling method for the development of groupware applications as socio-technical systems , 2004, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[40]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Improvising Organizational Transformation Over Time: A Situated Change Perspective , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[41]  Karen Holtzblatt,et al.  Contextual design , 1997, INTR.

[42]  E. Salas,et al.  Shared mental models in expert team decision making. , 1993 .

[43]  J. Piaget.  The Language and Thought of the Child , 1927 .

[44]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations , 1994, TOIS.

[45]  P. B. Pufall,et al.  Piaget's Theory : Prospects and Possibilities , 1992 .

[46]  P.A.A. van den Besselaar,et al.  Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices. , 2004 .

[47]  Paul Dourish,et al.  On "Technomethodology": Foundational Relationships Between Ethnomethodology and System Design , 1998, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[48]  Kjeld Schmidt,et al.  Taking CSCW Seriously: Supporting Articulation Work * , 1992 .

[49]  Thomas Herrmann,et al.  Meta-knowledge - a success factor for computer-supported organizational learning in companies , 2003, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[50]  Mike Robinson,et al.  Design for Unanticipated Use , 1993, ECSCW.

[51]  Thomas Herrmann,et al.  Improving the coordination of collaborative learning with process models , 2005, CSCL.

[52]  R. Hastie,et al.  The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. , 1993 .

[53]  E. Goffman.  Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience , 1974 .

[54]  F. J. Langdon,et al.  The Child's Conception of Space , 1967 .

[55]  I. Nonaka,et al.  The Knowledge Creating Company , 2008 .

[56]  Bonnie Mae Kaplan,et al.  Information systems research: Relevant theory and informed practice , 2004 .

[57]  A. Adam.  Whatever happened to information systems ethics? Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea , 2004 .

[58]  Matthew R. Jones,et al.  The long and winding road: collaborative IT and organisational change , 1998, CSCW '98.

[59]  J. Mathieu,et al.  Scaling the quality of teammates' mental models: equifinality and normative comparisons , 2005 .

[60]  S. Fernberger.  The language and thought of the child. , 1927 .

[61]  J. Flavell.  Perspectives on perspective taking. , 1992 .

[62]  Lucy Suchman.  Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication , 1987 .

[63]  S. Barley.  Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. , 1986, Administrative science quarterly.

[64]  Ian Patrick McLoughlin,et al.  Rethinking Political Process in Technological Change: Socio-technical Configurations and Frames , 2000 .

[65]  Helena Karsten,et al.  Constructing Interdependencies with Collaborative Information Technology , 2000 .

[66]  Angela Lin,et al.  The social and political construction of technological frames , 2005, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[67]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[68]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations , 1995 .