Dependability as Ordinary Action

  • Alexander Voß
  • Roger Slack
  • Rob Procter
  • Robin Williams
  • Mark Hartswood
  • Mark Rouncefield
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2434)


This paper presents an ethnomethodologically informed study of the ways that more-or-less dependable systems are part of the everyday lifeworld of society members. Through case study material we explicate how dependability is a practical achievement and how it is constituted as a common sense notion. We show how attending to the logical grammar of dependability can clarify some issues and potential conceptual confusions around the term that occur between lay and ‘professional’ uses. The paper ends with a call to consider dependability in its everyday ordinary language context as well as more ‘professional’ uses of this term.


Assembly Line Dependable System Society Member Ordinary Action Assembly Control 
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. [1]
    P. Beynon-Davies. Information systems failure and risk assessment: the case of the London Ambulance Service Computer Aided Despatch System. In European Conference on Information Systems, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Mark Hartswood and Rob Procter. Design guidelines for deadling with breakdowns and repairs in collaborative work settings. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53:91–120, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Christian Heath, Marina Jirotka, Paul Lu. and John Hindmarsh. Unpacking collaboration: the interactional organisation of trading in a city dealing room. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work 3, 1994, pages 147–165.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    John Hughes, Val King, Tom Rodden, Hans Andersen. The role of ethnography in interactive systems design. interactions, pages 56–65, April 1995.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J.A. Hughes, J. O'Brien, M. Rouncefield. Organisational memory and CSCW: supporting the ‘Mavis’ phenomenon. Proceedings of OzCHI, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Nancy Leveson and Clark S. Turner. An investigation of the Therac-25 accidents. IEEE Computer, 26(7):18–41, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Eric Livingston. The Ethnomethodological Foundations of Mathematics. Routledge, Kegan, Paul, London, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Wes Sharrock, John A. Hughes. Ethnography in the Workplace: Remarks on its theoretical basis. TeamEthno-Online, Issue 1, November 2001. Available at (accessed 14th Feb. 2002)
  9. [9]
    Lucy A. Suchman. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Alexander Voß, Rob Procter, Robin Williams. Innovation in Use: Interleaving day-to-day operation and systems development. PDC’2000 Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference, T. Cherkasky, J. Greenbaum, P. Mambrey, J.K. Pors (eds.), pages 192–201, New York, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Alexander Voß, Rob Procter, Roger Slack, Mark Hartswood, Robin Williams. Production Management and Ordinary Action: an investigation of situated, resourceful action in production planning and control. Proceedings of the 20th UK Planning and Scheduling SIG Workshop, Edinburgh, Dec. 2001.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Robin Williams, Roger Slack and James Stewart. Social Learning in Multimedia. Final Report of the EC Targeted Socio-Economic Research Project: 4141 PL 951003. Research Centre for Social Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Ludwig Wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell, Oxford 1953 (2001).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Voß
    • 1
  • Roger Slack
    • 1
  • Rob Procter
    • 1
  • Robin Williams
    • 2
  • Mark Hartswood
    • 1
  • Mark Rouncefield
    • 3
  1. 1.School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghUK
  2. 2.Research Centre for Social SciencesUniversity of EdinburghUK
  3. 3.Department of ComputingUniversity of LancasterUK

Personalised recommendations