, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 113–123 | Cite as

Coordination technology for active support networks: context, needfinding, and design

  • Stanley J. Rosenschein
  • Todd DaviesEmail author
Original Article


Coordination is a key problem for addressing goal–action gaps in many human endeavors. We define interpersonal coordination as a type of communicative action characterized by low interpersonal belief and goal conflict. Such situations are particularly well described as having collectively “intelligent”, “common good” solutions, viz., ones that almost everyone would agree constitute social improvements. Coordination is useful across the spectrum of interpersonal communication—from isolated individuals to organizational teams. Much attention has been paid to coordination in teams and organizations. In this paper we focus on the looser interpersonal structures we call active support networks (ASNs), and on technology that meets their needs. We describe two needfinding investigations focused on social support, which examined (a) four application areas for improving coordination in ASNs: (1) academic coaching, (2) vocational training, (3) early learning intervention, and (4) volunteer coordination; and (b) existing technology relevant to ASNs. We find a thus-far unmet need for personal task management software that allows smooth integration with an individual’s active support network. Based on identified needs, we then describe an open architecture for coordination that has been developed into working software. The design includes a set of capabilities we call “social prompting”, as well as templates for accomplishing multi-task goals, and an engine that controls coordination in the network. The resulting tool is currently available and in continuing development. We explain its use in ASNs with an example. Follow-up studies are underway in which the technology is being applied in existing support networks.


Coordination Social prompting Communicative action Attitude–behavior gap Intention–action gap Active support networks 



We have benefited from conversations with Jeff Shrager, Rich Levinson, and Marc Smith, as well as an email exchange with Doug Schuler and the comments of two anonymous reviewers.


  1. Arrow K (1963) Social choice and individual values, 2nd edn. Yale University Press, New HavenzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron J (2007) Thinking and deciding, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazerman M, Neale MA (1992) Negotiating rationally. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Davies T, Gangadharan SP (eds) (2009) Online deliberation: design, research, and practice. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  5. De Cindio F, Klein M, De Liddo A, Schuler D, Buckingham Shum S, Original Signatories (2014) Collective intelligence for the common good community/network statement of principles. Public Sphere Project. Accessed 5 Nov 2016
  6. Flores F, Graves M, Hartfield B, Winograd T (1988) Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction. ACM Trans Off Inform Syst 6:153–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fogg BJ, Hreha J (2010) Behavior wizard: a method for matching target behaviors with solutions. In: Ploug T, Hasle P, Oinas-Kukkonen H (eds) Persuasive Technology. PERSUASIVE 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6137. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  8. Gawande A (2010) The checklist manifesto: how to get things right. Metropolitan Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Godin G, Conner M, Sheeran P (2005) Bridging the intention–behaviour gap: the role of moral norm. British J Soc Psych 44:497–512. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gollwitzer PM, Sheeran P, Michalski V, Seifert AE (2009) When intentions go public: does social reality widen the intention–behavior gap? Psychol Sci 20:612–618. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grace P, Blair G (2012) Emergent middleware: tackling the interoperability problem. IEEE Internet Comput 16:78–82. Google Scholar
  12. Greenfield A (2013) Against the smart city. Amazon, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  13. Habermas J (1984) Theory of communicative action, volume one: reason and the rationalization of society. Tr. by McCarthy TA. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Habermas J (1987) Theory of communicative action, volume two: lifeworld and system: a critique of functionalist reason. Tr. by McCarthy TA. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. Hollenbeck JR, Williams CR, Klein HJ (1989) An empirical examination of the antecedents of commitment to difficult goals. J Appl Psychol 74:18–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuo FY, Young ML (2008) A study of the intention–action gap in knowledge sharing practices. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 59:1224–1237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lenat DB, Prakash M, Shepherd M (1985) CYC: Using common sense knowledge to overcome brittleness and knowledge acquisition bottlenecks. AI Magazine 6:65. Accessed 9 Nov 2016
  18. Levitin DJ (2014) The organized mind: thinking straight in the age of information overload. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Malone TW, Crowston K (1994) The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comput Surv 26:87–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rogers T, Milkman KL, Volpp KG (2014) Commitment devices: using initiatives to change behavior. JAMA 311:2065–2066. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sadowski J (2016) Selling smartness: visions and politics of the smart city. Dissertation, Arizona State University. Accessed 8 Nov 2016
  22. Searle J (1969) Speech acts. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Selic P, Svab I, Repolusk M, Gucek NK (2011) What factors affect patients’ recall of general practitioners’ advice? BMC Fam Pract 12:141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sniehotta FF, Scholz U, Schwarzer R (2005) Bridging the intention–behaviour gap: planning, self-efficacy, and action control in the adoption and maintenance of physical exercise. Psychol Health 20:143–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Staats H, Harland P, Wilke HA (2004) Effecting durable change: a team approach to improve environmental behavior in the household. Environ Behav 36:341–367. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Staats BR, Milkman KL, Fox CR (2012) The team scaling fallacy: underestimating the declining efficiency of larger teams. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 118:132–142. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sunstein C, Thaler R (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  28. Tetlock P, Mitchell G (2009) Implicit bias and accountability systems: what must organizations do to prevent discrimination? Res Organ Behav 29:3–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vermeir I, Verbeke W (2006) Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. J Agric Environ Ethics 19:169–194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. York BN, Loeb S (2014) One step at a time: the effects of an early literacy text messaging program for parents of preschoolers (No. w20659). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BranchTime TechnologiesPalo AltoUSA
  2. 2.Center for the Study of Language and InformationStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Symbolic Systems ProgramStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations