Advertisement

Cognition, Technology & Work

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 119–133 | Cite as

Representing collaborative work: the airport as common information space

  • Bob Fields
  • Paola Amaldi
  • Antonello Tassi
Original Article

Abstract

This paper reports a field study of work in a complex setting:an airport. The study was largely focused on the Air Traffic Control activities carried out in the airport control tower, but also investigated other work sites around the airport. An important feature of the successful operation of the airport, then, is the way that the activities occurring in these different sites become articulated through explicit communicative acts and through common understandings of the work of the airport. The airport is viewed as a common information space, a perspective that emphasises meaning and interpretation and the processes by which meanings become common across a heterogeneous work system. A characteristic of the environment studied here is that while meanings may not be common across the different communities of practice working at the airport, interpretations appear to be sufficiently common as to pose few problems in most circumstances.

Keywords

Common information space Air Traffic Control Collaborative work 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study reported here was carried out as part of the Fast Prototyping project, sponsored by ENAV (Ente Nazionale Assistenza al Volo) and carried out by a consortium lead by Prof. Gaspare Galati from the Engineering Department of the University of Rome “Tor Vergata”. We wish to thank Fast Prototyping and the School of Computing, Middlesex University, for supporting this work. We would also like to express our gratitude to Paul van Fenema and Gabriella Spinelli who made many insightful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

  1. Bannon L (2000) Understanding common information spaces in CSCW. In: Workshop on common information spaces. Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bannon L, Bødker S (1997) Constructing common information spaces. In: European conference on computer supported cooperative work ECSCW’97Google Scholar
  3. Berndtsson J, Normark M (1999) The coordinative functions of flight strips: air traffic control work revisited. In: ACM GROUP’99 - international conference on supporting group workGoogle Scholar
  4. Berndtsson J, Normark M (2005) Coordination in air traffic control work: the Copenhagen field studies. COTCOS network report http://www-sv.cict.fr/cotcos/ (cited on 12 May 2005)Google Scholar
  5. Bertelsen O, Bødker S (2001) Cooperation in massively distributed information spaces. In: Prinz W, Jarke M, Rogers Y, Schmidt K, Vulf V (eds) ECSCW 2001: proceedings of the seventh European conference on computer supported cooperative work, Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  6. Bossen C (2002) The parameters of common information spaces: the heterogeneity of cooperative work at a hospital ward. In: Proceedings of computer supported cooperative work CSCW’02. ACM Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark HH (1996). Using language. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Clement A, Wagner I (1995) Fragmented exchange: disarticulation and the need for regionalized communication spaces. In: Marmolin H, Sundblad Y, Schmidt K (eds) ECSCW ’95: proceedings of the fourth European conference on computer supported cooperative workGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole M (1996) Cultural psychology - a once and future discipline, Harvard University Press, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Crowston K (1997) A coordination theory approach to organizational process design. Organ Sci 8(2):157–175Google Scholar
  11. Donellon A, Gray B, Bougon MG (1986) Communication, meaning, and organized action. Adm Sci Q 31:43–55Google Scholar
  12. Erickson T, Kellog WA (2003) Social translucence: using minimalist visualisations of social activity to support collective interaction. In: Höök K, Benyon D, Munro AJ (eds) Designing information spaces: the social navigation approach. Springer, NY, pp 17–42Google Scholar
  13. Faraj S, Sproull L (2000) Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Manage Sci 46(12):1154–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fields B, Duncker E (2003) Articulating resources: the impact of electronic health records on cross-professional healthcare work. In: Adams A, Kostkova P (eds) Healthcare digital libraries’03, ECDL. Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  15. Fields RP, Wright P Marti, Palmonari M (1998). Air traffic control as a distributed cognitive system: a case study of external representations. In: Green TRG, Bannon L, Warren CP, Buckley J (eds) ECCE9: proceedings of the ninth European conference on cognitive Ergonomics. EACE.Google Scholar
  16. Garbis C (2002) Exploring the openness of cognitive artefacts in cooperative process management. Cogn Technol Work 4:9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halverson CA (1994) Distributed cognition as a theoretical framework for HCI: don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater - the importance of the cursor in air traffic control. Cognitive Science Department, UCSD Report, 9403Google Scholar
  18. Harper RHR, Hughes JA (1993) What a f-ing system! Send ’em all to the same place and then expect us to stop ’em hitting: making technology work in air traffic control. In: Button G (ed) Technology in working order: studies of work, interaction, and technology. Routledge, London, pp 127–144Google Scholar
  19. Harper RHR, Hughes JA Shapiro D (1991) Harmonious working and CSCW: computer technology and air traffic control. In: Bowers J, Benford SD (eds) Studies in computer supported cooperative work, Elsevier, London, pp 225–234Google Scholar
  20. Heath C, Luff P (2000) Technology in action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Hollan J, Hutchins E, Kirsh D (2000) Distributed cognition: towards a new foundation for HCI research. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 7(2):174–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hughes JA, Randall D, Shapiro D (1992) Faltering from ethnography to design. In: Turner J, Kraut R (eds) Computer Supported Cooperative Work CSCW’92. ACM Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  23. Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Open University Press, BerkshireGoogle Scholar
  25. Luff P, Heath C (1999) Surveying the scene: the monitoring practices of staff in control rooms. In: Noyes JM, Bransby M (eds) People in control: an international conference on human interfaces in control rooms. Cockpits amd command centresGoogle Scholar
  26. Marti P (2000) The choice of the unit of analysis for modelling real work settings. Cogn Technol Work 2:62–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin D, Bowers J, Wastell D (1997) The interactional affordances of technology: an ethnography of human-computer interaction in an ambulance control centre. In: Thomas P, O’Conaill B (eds) People and computers XI: proceedings of HCI’97. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. Perry M (2003) Distributed cognition. In: Carroll JM (ed) HCI models, theories, and frameworks: towards a multidisciplinary science. Morgan Kaufmann, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  29. Reddy M, Dourish P, Pratt W (2001) Coordinating heterogneous work: information and representation in medical care. In: Prinz W, Jarke M, Rogers Y, Schmidt K, Vulf V (eds) ECSCW 2001: proceedings of the seventh European conference on computer supported cooperative work. KluwerGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmidt K, Bannon L (1992) Taking CSCW seriously: supporting articulation work. Computer Support Coop Work. J Collaborative Comput 1(1):7–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmidt K, Simone C (1996) Coordination mechanisms: towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design. Computer Support Coop Work. J Collaborative Comput 5(2/3):155–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Star SL (1989) The structure of ill-defined solutions: boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In: Gasser L, Huhns M (eds) Distributed artificial intelligence, Vol 2, Pitman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Strauss A (1988) The articulation of project work: an organizational process. Sociol Q 29(1):163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Suchman L, (1996) Constituting shared workspaces. In: Engeström Y, Middleton D (eds) Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Vygotsky LS (1986) Thought and language. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Weick KE, Roberts KH (1993) Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Adm Sci Q 38: 357–381Google Scholar
  37. Wenger E (2000) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interaction Design CentreMiddlesex UniversityLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Engineering, Development and Production (DISP)University of Rome “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations