Relation work: Creating socio-technical connections in global engineering

  • Pernille BjørnEmail author
  • Lars Rune Christensen
Conference paper


In this article the notion of relation work will be put forward to describe efforts of connecting people and artefacts in a multitude of ways as part of facilitating global interaction and coordination in an engineering firm. Relation work can be seen as a parallel to the concept of articulation work. Articulation work describes efforts of coordination necessary in cooperative work, but, arguably, focuses mainly on taskspecific aspects of cooperative work. As a supplement, the concept of relation work focuses on the fundamental relational aspect of cooperative work. Relation work forms the fundamental activities of creating socio-technical connections between people and artefacts during collaborative activities required to create and enact the human and electronic network and engage with articulation work in cooperative engagements. The concept of relation work is applied within an ethnographic study of War Room meetings in a Global engineering firm. It is argued that relation work is a perquisite for other activities such as articulation work. Relation work is described in a number of dimensions, including connecting people with people, people with artefacts, and artefacts with other artefacts.


Cooperative Work Articulation Work Cement Factory Computer Support Cooperative Work Global Interaction 
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. Allen, T. J. (1977): Managing the Flow of Technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bardram, J. E., and Bossen, C. A. (2005): A web of coordinative artifacts: collaborative work at a hospital ward., In Proceedings of the 2005 international ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, November 06 - 09, 2005). Sanibel Island, Florida, USA: ACM Press, NY.Google Scholar
  3. Bjørn, P. (2003): Re-Negotiating Protocols: A way to Integrate Groupware in Collaborative Learning Settings. Paper presented at the ECIS, New Paradigms in Organizations, Markets and Society, Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information System, Napoli 19–21 June.Google Scholar
  4. Bjørn, P., and Ngwenyama, O. (2010): Technology Alignment: A New Area in Virtual Team Research. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 53(4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Covi, L., Olson, J., Rocco, E., Miller, W., and Allie, P. (1998): A Room of Your Own: What Do We Learn about Support of Teamwork from Assessing Teams in Dedicated Project Rooms? In Cooperative Buildings: Integrating Information, Organization, and Architecture (Vol. 1370, pp. 53–65): Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gerson, E. M., and Star, S. L. (1986): Analyzing due process in the workplace. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(3), pp. 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harper, R. H. R., and Hughes, J. A. (1993): What a f-ing system! send ’em all to the same place and then expect us to stop them hitting: Making technology work in air traffic control. In G. Button (Ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of work, interaction, and technology (pp. 127–144): Routlege.Google Scholar
  8. Harper, R. H. R., Hughes, J. A., and Shapiro, D. Z. (1989a): Working in harmony: An examination of computer technology in air traffic control., Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Gatwick, London, 13–15 September, 1989 (pp. 73–86). Gatwick.Google Scholar
  9. Harper, R. R., Hughes, J. A., and Shapiro, D. Z. (1989b): The Functionality of Flight Strips in ATC Work. The report for the Civil Aviation Authority: Lancaster Sociotechnics Group, Department of Sociology, Lancaster University..Google Scholar
  10. Heath, C., and Luff, P. (1992): Collaboration and control: Crisis mangement and multimedia technology in London Underground control rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) An International Journal, 1(1–2), pp. 69–94.Google Scholar
  11. Heath, C., Svensson, M. S., Hindmarsh, J., Luff, P., and Lehn, D. (2002): Configuring Awarness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11, pp. 317–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heath, C. C., and Luff, P. (1996): Convergent activities: Line control and passenger information on the London Underground. In Y. Engeström and D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and Communication at Work. (pp. 96–129). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Herbsleb, D., and Grinter, R. E. (1999): Splitting the Organization and Integrating the Code: Conway’s Law Revisited., Int’l Conf. Software Eng (pp. 85–95).Google Scholar
  14. Herbsleb, J. D., Mockus, A., Finholt, T. A., and Grinter, R. E. (2000): Distance, Dependencies, and Delay in a Global Collaboration, CSCW 2000. Philadelphia, P.A.Google Scholar
  15. Kraut, R. E., Egido, C., and Galegher, J. (1990): Patterns of Contact and Communication in Scientific Research Collaboration. In J. Galegher, K. R.E. and C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual Teamwork: Social Foundations of Cooperative Work. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Larsson, A. (2003): Making sense of collaboration: The challenge of thinking together in global design teams, GROUP (pp. 153–160). Sanible Island, Florida: ACM.Google Scholar
  17. Mark, G. (2001): Extreme Collaboration. Communications of the ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Nardi, B., Whittaker, S., and Schwarz, H. (2002): NetWORKers and their activity in intensional networks. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): An International Journal, 11, pp. 205–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Olson, G. M., and Olson, J. S. (2000): Distance Matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15, pp. 139–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Randall, D., Harper, R., and Rouncefield, M. (2007): Fieldwork for design: Theory and practice. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Schmidt, K., and Bannon, L. (1992): Taking CSCW Seriously: Supporting Articulation Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal., 1(1–2), pp. 7–40.Google Scholar
  22. Schmidt, K., and Simone, C. (1996): Coordination mechanisms: Towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 5(2–3), pp. 155–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Strauss, A. (1985): Work and the division of labor. The Sociological Quarterly, 26(1), pp. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Strauss, A. (1988): The Articulation of Project Work: An Organizational Process. The Sociological Quarterly, 29(2), pp. 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Suchman, L. (1995): Making Work Visible. Communications of the ACM, 38(9), pp. 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Teasley, S., Cowi, L., Krishnan, M. S., and Olson, J. S. (2000): How does radical collocation help a team succeed?, Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States: ACM.Google Scholar
  27. Whittaker, S., and Schwarz, H. (1999): Meetings of the board: The impact of scheduling medium on long term group coordination in software development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): An International Journal, 8(3), pp. 175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations