Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 15, Issue 5–6, pp 467–499 | Cite as

Achieving Dependability in the Configuration, Integration and Testing of Healthcare Technologies

  • David Martin
  • Mark Hartswood
  • Roger Slack
  • Alex Voss


This paper presents two case studies, which highlight the practical work involved in developing and deploying dependable healthcare systems. It shows how dependability is a thoroughgoingly practical, contexted achievement. We show how dependability is an outcome of the reasoning and argumentation processes that stakeholders engage in, in situations such as design and testing. What becomes relevant during these interactions stands as the dependability criteria that must be achieved. Furthermore, we examine the way in which different dependability criteria need to be managed, and even relatively prioritised, before finally discussing the types of work this provokes at the boundaries of organisations, particularly when integrating work and technologies.


configuration dependability ethnography healthcare integration testing 


  1. Button G. (2006) A New Perspective On The Dependability of Software Systems. In: Clarke K., Hardstone G., Rouncefield M., Sommerville I. (eds), Trust in Technology: A Socio-Technical Perspective. Dordecht, NL: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  2. Button G., Sharrock W. (1994) Occasioned Practices in the Work of Software Engineers. In: Jirotka M., Goguen J. (eds), Requirements Engineering: Social & Technical Issues. London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Button G., Sharrock W. (1996) Project Work: The Organisation of Collaborative Design and Development in Software Engineering. Journal of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (JCSCW) 5(4): 369–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke, K., M. Hartswood, R. Procter, M. Rouncefield and R. Slack (2002): Minus Nine Beds: Some Practical Problems of Integrating and Interpreting Information Technology in a Hospital Trust. In Proceedings of the HC 2002 Conference: Current Perspectives in Healthcare Computing, Harrogate, UK, pp. 205–211Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, K., J. Hughes, D. Martin, M. Rouncefield, I. Sommerville, C. Gurr, M. Hartswood, P. Procter, R. Slack and A. Voss (2003): Dependable Red Hot Action. In K. Kuutti, E.H. Karsten, G. Fitzpatrick, P. Dourish and K. Schmidt (eds): Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 61–80Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, K., G. Hardstone, M. Rouncefield and I. Sommerville (eds) (2006): Trust in Technology: A Socio-Technical Perspective. Dordecht, NL: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  7. Crabtree A. (2003) Designing Collaborative Systems: A Practical Guide to Ethnography. London: Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernando B., Savelyich B.S.P., Avery A.J., Sheikh A., Bainbridge M., Horsfield P., Teasdale S. (2004) Prescribing Safety Features of General Practice Computer Systems: Evaluation Using Simulated Test Cases. British Medical Journal 328: 1171–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finkelstein, A. and J. Dowell (1996): A Comedy of Errors: The London Ambulance Service Case Study. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Software Specification & Design IWSSD-8 (IEEE CS Press), pp. 2–4Google Scholar
  10. Garfinkel H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  11. Garfinkel, H., E. Livingston, M. Lynch, D. Macbeth and A. Robillard (1989): Respecifying the Natural Sciences as Discovery Sciences of Practical Action: I and II. Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  12. Hardstone G., d’Adderio L., Williams R. (2006). Standardization, Trust and Dependability. In Clarke K., Hardstone G., Rouncefield M., Sommerville I. (eds), Trust in Technology: A Socio-Technical Perspective. Dordecht, NL: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  13. Hughes, J., V. King, T. Rodden and H. Andersen (1994): Moving Out of the Control Room: Ethnography in System Design. In Proceedings of CSCW 94. New York: ACM pressGoogle Scholar
  14. Kohn K.T., Corrigan J.M., Donaldson M.S. (1999) To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Koppel R., Metlay J.P., Cohen A., Abaluck B., Localio A.R., Kimmel S.E., Strom B.L. (2005) Role of Computerised Physician Order Entry Systems in Facilitating Medical Errors. Journal of the American Medical Association 293(10): 1197–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laprie, J.-C. (1995): Dependable Computing: Concepts, Limits, Challenges. Invited paper to FTCS-25, the 25th IEEE International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing, June 27–30Google Scholar
  17. Perrow C. (1999) Normal Accidents, (Revision of the 1984 edition). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Schutz A. (1973) On Multiple Realities. In: Natanson M. (ed), Collected Papers I: The Problem of Social Reality. Den Haag: Martinus NijhoffGoogle Scholar
  19. Voß, A., R. Slack, R. Procter, R. Williams, M. Hartswood and M. Rouncefield (2002): Dependability as Ordinary Action. In Anderson, Bologna and Felici (eds): Computer Safety, Reliability and Security: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference, SAFECOMP 2002, pp. 32–43Google Scholar
  20. Wallace, D.R. and D.R. Kuhn (1999): Lessons From 342 Medical Device Failures. In The 4th IEEE International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering. Washington, DC: IEEEGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Martin
    • 1
  • Mark Hartswood
    • 2
  • Roger Slack
    • 2
  • Alex Voss
    • 2
  1. 1.Computing DepartmentLancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  2. 2.Institute for Communicating and Collaborative Systems, School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations