Temporality in Planning: The Case of the Allocation of Parking Areas for Aircrafts

Conference paper
First Online:

Abstract

Several recent studies have focused on plans as coordination devices, demonstrating how organisational members use such plans to organise and make sense of their work. This research project aims to foster empirical research on plans showing how operators at the centre of coordination in handling activities at an Italian airport plan the allocation of parking areas for aircrafts. Based on the analysis of the operators’ knowledge of the temporal features of planning, this research contributes to the understanding of how timely assistance for aircrafts on the ground depends on how spaces are allocated. This research highlights temporality in planning and promotes the understanding of the features of allocation and planning as situated and distributed activities.

Keywords

Timely Execution Work Activity Parking Area Usable Space Temporal Coordination 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Dave Randall with whom we discussed the role of plans in workplace settings.

References

  1. Amerine, R., & Bilmes, J. (1988). Following instructions. Human Studies, 11(2–3), 327–339.Google Scholar
  2. Atkin, J. A. D., Burke, E. K., Ravizza, S. (2010). The airport ground movement problem: Past and current research and future directions. In Procedings of the 4 th International Conference on Research in Air Transportation (pp. 131–138). Busapest: CATSR.Google Scholar
  3. Bardram, J. E. (1997). Plans as situated action: An activity theory approach to workflow systems. In Proceedings of ECSCW’97 (pp. 17–34). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Bardram, J. E. (2000). Temporal coordination. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 9(2), 157–187.Google Scholar
  5. Bardram, J. E., & Hansen, T. R. (2010). Why the plan doesn’t hold- a study of situated planning, articulation and coordination work in a surgical ward. In K. I. Quinn, C. Gutwin, J. C. Tang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW 2010 (pp. 331–340). Savannah: ACM.Google Scholar
  6. Berndtsson, J., & Normark, M. (1999). The coordinative functions of flight strips: air traffic control work revised. In Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work 1999 (pp. 101–110). Phoenix: ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Bossen, C., & Markussen, R. (2010). Infrastructuring and ordering devices in health care: Medication plans and practices on a hospital ward. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 19(6), 615–637.Google Scholar
  8. Button, G., & Sharrock, W. (1996). Project work: the organization of collaborative design and development in software engineering. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 5(4), 369–386.Google Scholar
  9. Button, G., & Sharrock, W. (1998). The organizational accountability of technological work. Social Studies of Science 28(1), 73–102.Google Scholar
  10. Cabitza, F., & Simone, C. (2012). Affording mechanisms: an integrated view of coordination and knowledge management. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 21(2–3), 227–260.Google Scholar
  11. Carassa, A. (2000). La conoscenza entra in azione. In G. Mantovani (Ed.), Ergonomia (pp. 123–150). Bologna: Il Mulino. Google Scholar
  12. Ciborra, C. (2002). The labyrinths of information. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Crabtree, A., Nichols, S. M., O’Brien, J., Rouncefield, M., & Twidale, M. B. (2000). Ethnomethodologically informed ethnography and information system design. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(7), 666–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dant, T., & Francis D. (1998). Planning in organisations: Rational control or contingent activity? Sociological Research Online, 3(2). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/3/2/4.html.
  15. Egger, E., & Wagner, I. (1993). Negotiating temporal orders. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1(4), 255–275.Google Scholar
  16. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’ s program: working out Durkheim’ s aphorism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  18. Hon Wai Chun, A., Ho Chuen Chan, S., Ming Fai Tsang, F., & Wai Ming Yeung, D. (2000). Stand-allocation system. AI Magazine, 21(4), 63–74.Google Scholar
  19. Karasti, H., Baker, K. S., & Millerand F. (2010). Infrastructure time: long-term matters in collaborative development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 19(3–4), 377–415.Google Scholar
  20. Kelemen, Z. (2005). Resource management system—The first step to the airport information system integration. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering, 33(1–2), 15–24.Google Scholar
  21. Koskinen, I. (2000). Plans, evaluation, and accountability at the workplace. Sociological Research Online, 4(4), http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/4/koskinen.html.
  22. Llewellyn, N. (2008). Organization in actual episodes of work: Harvey sacks and organization studies. Organization Studies, 29(5), 763–791.Google Scholar
  23. Llewellyn, N., & Spence, L. (2009). Practice as a members’ phenomenon. Organization Studies, 30(12): 1419–1439.Google Scholar
  24. Malone, T., & Crowston, K (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26(1), 87–119.Google Scholar
  25. Nilsson, M., & Hertzum, M. (2005). Negotiated rhythms of mobile work: time, place, and work schedules. In Proceedings of GROUP’05 (pp. 148–157). Sanibel Island: ACM.Google Scholar
  26. Normark M., & Randall, D. (2005). Local expertise at an emergency call centre. In H. Gellersen et al. (Eds.), ECSCW 2005: Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 347–366). Paris: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Orlikowski, W., & Yates, J. (2002). It’s about time: Temporal structuring in organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 684–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Randall, D., O’Brien, J., Rouncefield, M., & Hughes, J. A. (1996). Organizational memory and CSCW: Supporting the ‘Mavis’ Phenomenon. In J. Grundy, M. Apperley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Australian Conference on HCI (OzCHI’96) (pp. 26–35). IEEE.Google Scholar
  29. Randall, D., Harper, R., & Rouncefield, M. (2007). Fieldwork for design. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Randall, D., & Rouncefield, M. (2011). Plans and planning: Conceptual confusions and empirical investigations’. In M. Rouncefield & P. Tolmie (Eds.), Ethomethodology at work (pp. 73–89). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  31. Reddy, M., & Doursih, P. (2002). A finger on the pulse: Temporal rhythms and information seeking in medical work. In Proceedings of CSCW’02 (pp. 344–353). New Orleans: ACM.Google Scholar
  32. Reddy, M., Dourish, P., & Pratt, W. (2006). Temporality in medical work: time also matters. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15(1), 29–53.Google Scholar
  33. Rönkkö, K., Dittrich, Y., Randall, D. (2005). When plans do not work out: How plans are used in software development projects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14(5), 433–468.Google Scholar
  34. Schmidt, K., Simone, C. (1996). Coordination mechanisms: Towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 5(2–3), 155–200.Google Scholar
  35. Schmidt, K. (1999). Of maps and scripts: The status of formal constructs in cooperative work. Information Software Technology, 41(6), 319–329.Google Scholar
  36. Schmidt, K. (2011). Frail foundation. In K. Schmidt (Ed.), Cooperative Work and Coordinative Practices (pp. 359–389). Spinger: London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sharroch, W., & Button, G. (2003). Plans and situated action 10 years on. The Journal of the Learning Science, 12(2), 259–264.Google Scholar
  38. Sherman Heyl, B. (2001). Ethnographic interviewing. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of Ethnography (pp. 369–383). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Suchman, L. A. (1997). Centres of coordination: A case and some themes. In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition (pp. 41–62). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vera, A., & Simon, H. (1993). Situated action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science, 17, 7–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whittaker, S., & Schwartz, H. (1999). Meetings of the board: The impact of scheduling medium on long term group coordination in software development. Computer supported Cooperative Work, 8(3), 175–205.Google Scholar
  43. Zimmerman, D. (1971). The practicalities of rule use. In J. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding Everyday Life. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università della Svizzera italianaLuganoSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations