Knowledge, Technology & Policy

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 90–108 | Cite as

Building information systems as universalized locals

  • Mark Hartswood
  • Alexander Voß
  • Rob Procter
  • Mark Rouncefield
  • Roger Slack
  • Robin Williams


We report on our experiences in a participatory design project to develop ICTs in a hospital ward working with deliberate self-harm patients. This project involves the creation and constant re-creation of socio-technical ensembles that satisfy the various, changing and often contradictory and conflicting needs in this context. Such systems are shaped in locally meaningful ways but nevertheless reach beyond their immediate context to gain wider importance and to be integrated with the larger environment.


Electronic Patient Record Hospital Information System Universalize Local Local Meaning Consultant Psychiatrist 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Berg, Marc (1997). Of Forms, Containers and the Electronic Medical Record: Some Tools for a Sociology of the Formal Science. Technology and Human Values, vol. 22, p. 403–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg, Marc (1998). Medical work and the computer-based record: a sociological perspective. Methods in Medicine, 38, p. 294–301.Google Scholar
  3. Berg, Marc and Bowker G. (1997). The Multiple Bodies of the Medical Record: Towards a Sociology of an Artifact. Sociological Quarterly, 38, 511–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, Marc and Timmermans, Stefan (2000). Orders and Their Others: On the Constitution of Universalities in Medical Work. Configurations vol. 8, p. 31–61.Google Scholar
  5. Brady, T., Tierney, M. and Williams, R. (1992). The Commodification of Industry Applications Software. Industrial and Corporate Change 1(3), p. 489–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caputo, A. C., Cardarelli, G., Palumbo, M. and Pelagagge, P.M. (1998). Computer integrated manufacturing in small companies: a case study. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 98(3), p. 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clement, Andrew and van den Besselaar, Peter (1993). A Retrospective Look at PD Projects. Communications of the ACM, June 1993, p. 29–37.Google Scholar
  8. Coyle, Frank P. (2000). Legacy Integration — Changing Perspectives. IEEE Software March/April, 37–41.Google Scholar
  9. Ellingsen, G. and Monterio, E. (2000). A patchwork planet: The heterogeneity of electronic patient record systems in hospitals. In Proceedings of the Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS’2000, Uddevalla, Sweden, August).Google Scholar
  10. Faber, M. (2001). Analysing complex health care networks. In Procter, R. and Rouncefield, M. (Eds.) Proceedings of the First Dependability IRC Workshop on Dependability and Healthcare Informatics, March. ISBN 1 86220 109 9.Google Scholar
  11. Fincham, R., Fleck, J., Procter, R., Scarbrough, H., Tierney, M. and Williams, R. (1994). Expertise and Innovation: IT Strategies in the Financial Services Sector. OUP.Google Scholar
  12. Fitzpatrick, G. (2000). Understanding the Paper Health Record in Practice: Implications for EHRs. In Proceedings of the Health Informatics Conference (HIC’2000), Canberra, Australia, July.Google Scholar
  13. Fleck, J. (1988). The development of information-integration: Beyond CIM? Edinburgh PICT Working Paper No. 9, Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
  14. Fleck, J. (1992). Innovation During Implementation: Configuration and CAPM. Edinburgh PICT Working Paper No. 37, Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
  15. Fleck, J. (1993). Innofusion: Feedback in the Innovation Process. In Stowell et al., Systems Science. Plenum Press. p. 169–174.Google Scholar
  16. Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M. and Sharpe, M. (2000). Being There and Doing IT: A Case Study of a Co-Development Approach in Healthcare. In Cherkasky, T., Greenbaum, J. and Mambery, P. (Eds.) Proceedings of the CPSR/IFIP WG 9.1 Participatory Design Conference, New York, November 28th–December 1st.Google Scholar
  17. Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M. and Sharpe, M. (2001). Making a Case in Medical Work: Implications for the Electronic Medical Record. To be published in the CSCW Journal.Google Scholar
  18. Hanseth, O. and Monteiro, E. (1998). Changing Irreversible Networks, in Proceedings of BCIS (Aix-en-Provence, June).Google Scholar
  19. Hanseth, Ole and Braa, Kristin (1998). Hunting the treasure under the rainbow: standardizing corporate infrastructure. In Buch, Damsgaard, Eriksen, Iversen and Nielsen (eds.), Proceedings of 21st IRIS. p. 307–322.Google Scholar
  20. Health Select Committee. (1999). Inquiry into the Relationship between Health and Social Services. London: House of Commons, January.Google Scholar
  21. Hughes, J.A, King, V., Randall, D., Sharrock, W. (1993). Ethnography for system design: a guide. COMIC Working Paper, Computing Department, Lancaster University, UK.Google Scholar
  22. Hughes, J., King, V., Rodden, T. and Andersen, H. (1994). Moving out from the control room: ethnography in system design, Technical Report CSEG/9/1994, Cooperative Systems Engineering Group, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  23. Milling, Peter M. (1997). Computer integrated manufacturing in German industry: aspirations and achievements. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 17(19), p. 1034–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. NHS Executive. (1998). An Information Strategy for the Modern NHS 1998–2005. Leeds: Department of Health, September.Google Scholar
  25. O’Hagan, G. (1999). Of Primary Importance: Inspection of social services departments’ links with primary health services — older people. Department of Health/Social Services Inspectorate. London: Department of Health, October.Google Scholar
  26. Ritchie, J, Dick, D. and Lingham, R. (1994). Report of the inquiry into the care and treatment of Christopher Clunis. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  27. Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff (1979) ‘Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction’. In: G. Psathas, ed., Everyday language: studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, 15–21.Google Scholar
  28. Schoeffel, P. (1998). Information Management and Information Technology (IM/IT) for Integrated Care. Healthcare Review-Online, 2(12).Google Scholar
  29. Sharrock, W., B. Anderson (1987) ‘Epilogue: the definition o alternatives: some sources of confusion in interdisciplinary discussion’. In: Button, G., J.R.E. Lee, eds., Talk and social organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 290–321.Google Scholar
  30. Timmermans, S. and Berg, M. (1997). Standardization in action: achieving universalism and localization in medical protocols. Social Studies of Science, vol. 27, p. 273–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Voß, A., Procter, R. and Williams, Robin (2000). Innovation in Use: Interleaving day-to-day operation and systems development. In: T. Cherkasky, J. Greenbaum, P. Mambrey, J. K. Pors (Eds.), Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference, 192–201.Google Scholar
  32. Williams, Robin (1997). Globalisation and Contingency: Tensions and Contradictions in the Mutual Shaping of Technology and Work Organisation. Chap. 8 in McLaughlin, I and Harris, M. (eds.), Innovation, Organizational Change and Technology, London: International Thompson Business Press.Google Scholar
  33. Williams, R., Slack, R., Stewart, J. (2000). Social Learning in Multimedia. Research Centre for Social Sciences, The University of Edinburgh. Final Report of the EC Targeted Socio-Economic Research Project: 4141 PL 951003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Transaction Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Hartswood
    • 1
  • Alexander Voß
    • 2
  • Rob Procter
    • 3
  • Mark Rouncefield
    • 4
  • Roger Slack
    • 5
  • Robin Williams
    • 6
  1. 1.the University of EdinburghUK
  2. 2.Computer Science from the University of Erlangen-NürnbergGermany
  3. 3.the Division of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghUK
  4. 4.the Cooperative Systems Engineering Group, Department of ComputingLancaster UniversityUK
  5. 5.the Institute for Communicating and Collaborative SystemsUniversity of EdinburghUK
  6. 6.the University of EdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations