ECSCW 2005 pp 65-82 | Cite as

A Groupware Design Framework for Loosely Coupled Workgroups

  • David Pinelle
  • Carl Gutwin


Loosely coupled workgroups — where workers are autonomous and weakly interdependent — are common in the real world. They have patterns of work and collaboration that distinguish them from other types of groups, and groupware systems that are designed to support loose coupling must address these differences. However, loosely coupled groups have not been studied in detail in CSCW, and the design process for these groups is currently underspecified. This forces designers to start from scratch each time they develop a system for loosely coupled groups, and they must approach new work settings with little information about how work practices are organized. In this paper, we present a design framework to improve the groupware design process for loosely coupled workgroups. The framework was developed to provide designers with a better understanding of how groupware systems can be designed to support loosely coupled work practices. It is based on information from CSCW and organizational research, and on real-world design experiences with one type of loosely coupled group—home care treatment teams. The framework was used to develop Mohoc, a groupware system for home care, and the system and underlying framework were evaluated during two field trials.


Home Care Work Practice Contextual Model Shared Workspace Home Health Aide 
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. Aldrich, H. (1979): Organizations and Environments, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  2. Bellotti, V., Bly, S. (1996): ‘Walking away from the desktop computer: distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team’, Proc. CSCW’96, ACM Press, pp. 209–218.Google Scholar
  3. Bertrand, A.L. (1972): Social Organization: A General Systems and Role Theory Perspective, F.A. Davis, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  4. Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A. (2001): ‘Managing knowledge in loosely coupled networks: exploring the links between product and knowledge dynamics’, Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), pp. 1019–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Churchill, E.F. and Wakeford, N. (2001): ‘Framing mobile collaboration and mobile technologies’, in Brown, B., Green, N., Harper, R. (eds.): Wireless World: Social and Interactional Implications of Wireless Technology, New York, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H. (1986): ‘Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design’, Management Science, 32(5), pp. 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DiTomaso, N. (2001): ‘The loose coupling of jobs: the subcontracting of everyone?’, in Berg, I. and Kalleberg, A.L. (eds.): Sourcebook of labor markets: evolving structures and processes., Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp 247–270.Google Scholar
  8. Fagrell, H., Forsberg, K., Sanneblad, J. (2000): ‘FieldWise: a mobile knowledge management architecture’, Proceedings CSCW 2000, ACM Press, pp. 211–220.Google Scholar
  9. Firestone, W. (1985): ‘The study of loose coupling: problems, progress and prospects’, in Kerckhoff, A. (ed.): Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, Greenwich, CT, JAI Press, 5:3–20.Google Scholar
  10. Foster, W. (1983): Loose-coupling Revisited: A Critical View of Weick’s Contribution to Educational Administration, Victoria University Press, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
  11. Grinter, R.E., Herbsleb, J.D., Perry, D.E. (1999): ‘The geography of coordination: dealing with distance in R&D work’, Proc. GROUP 1999, ACM Press, pp. 306–315.Google Scholar
  12. Hasenfeld, Y. (1983): Human Service Organizations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  13. Horne, S. (1992): ‘Organization and change within educational systems: some implications of a loose-coupled model’, Educational Management and Administration, 20(2), pp 88–98.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Kmetz, J.L. (1984): ‘An information-processing study of a complex workflow in aircraft electronics repair’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(2), pp. 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kouzes, J.M. and Mico, P.R. (1979): ‘Domain theory: an introduction to organizational behaviour in human service organisations’, Journal of Applied Behavioural Sciences, 15(4), pp. 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lei, D., Hitt, M.A., Goldhar, J.D. (1996): ‘Advanced manufacturing technology: organizational design and strategic flexibility’, Organization Studies, 17(3), pp.501–523.Google Scholar
  17. Litterer, J.A. (1965): The Analysis of Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Lorsch, J.W. (1973): ‘An open-system theory model for organizational research’, in Negandhi, A.R. (ed.): Modern Organizational Theory: Contextual, Environmental, and Socio-cultural Variables, Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio, pp. 132–144.Google Scholar
  19. Lutz, F.W. (1982): ‘Tightening up loose coupling in organizations of higher education’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, pp. 653–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Monane, J.H. (1967): A Sociology of Human Systems, Meredith Publishing, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Olson, J.S. and Teasley, S. (1996): ‘Groupware in the wild: lessons learned from a year of virtual collocation’, Proc. CSCW 1996, ACM Press, pp. 419–427.Google Scholar
  22. Orton, J.D. and Weick, K.E. (1990): ‘Loosely coupled systems: a reconceptualization’, Academy of Management Review, 15(2), pp. 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Perrow, C. (1999): Normal Accidents: Living with High-risk Technologies, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  24. Pinelle, D. (2004): Improving Groupware Design for Loosely Coupled Groups, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan, Canada.Google Scholar
  25. Pinelle, D. and Gutwin, C. (2003): ‘Designing for loose coupling in mobile groups’, Proceedings of GROUP 2003, ACM Press, pp. 75–84.Google Scholar
  26. Rubin, I.S. (1979): ‘Retrenchment, loose structure and adaptability in the university’, Sociology of Education, 52(4), pp. 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scheid-Cook, T.L. (1990): ‘Ritual conformity and organizational control: loose coupling or professionalization?’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26(2), pp. 183–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scott, W.R. (1987): Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  29. Scott, W.R. (1985): ‘Systems within systems: the mental health sector’, American Behavioral Scientist, 28(5), pp. 601–618.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, P.B. (1973): Groups Within Organizations: Applications of Social Psychology to Organizational Behaviour, Harper & Rowe, London.Google Scholar
  31. Staber, U., Sydow, J. (2002): ‘Organizational adaptive capacity-a structuration perspective’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(4), pp. 408–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tyler, W. (1987): ‘Loosely coupled schools: a structuralist critique’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 8(3).Google Scholar
  33. Weick, K.E. (1982): ‘Management of organizational change among loosely coupled elements’, in Goodman, P.S. (ed.): Change in Organizations: New Perspectives on Theory, Research, and Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  34. Weick, K.E. (1980): ‘Loosely coupled systems: relaxed meanings and thick interpretations’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, 1980.Google Scholar
  35. Weick, K.E. (1976): ‘Educational organizations as loosely-coupled systems’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, pp. 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Pinelle
    • 1
  • Carl Gutwin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SaskatchewanCanada

Personalised recommendations