Down in the (Data)base(ment): Supporting Configuration in Organizational Information Systems

  • Stuart Anderson
  • Gillian Hardstone
  • Rob Procter
  • Robin Williams
Part of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work book series (CSCW)


We present a case study of a project to introduce a new organization-wide, integrated information system within the UK healthcare sector that we conducted as part of a wider, socio-technical exploration of factors influencing the dependability of computer-based systems. We report in detail on the problems of working with and evolving a standardized classification of work procedures that is central to the organizational purpose of the new IT system, and the responses of both users and of the project team to these problems. These have important implications for the usability of computer-based systems and for the dependability of the information they contain. Drawing insights from sociological studies of classification and standardization, we reflect upon the lessons for the development and implementation of computer-based systems designed to serve as “common information spaces.”


Team Leader Work Practice Boundary Object Clinical User Menu Option 
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. Bannon L, Bødker S (1997) Constructing common information space. In Pro-ceedings of the European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW’97, Dordrecht. Kluwer, Lancaster, UK, pp. 81–96.Google Scholar
  2. Berg M, Bowker G (1997) The multiple bodies of the medical record: Towards a sociology of an artifact. Sociological Quarterly 38: 511–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg M, Timmermans S (2000) Order and their others—On the constitution of universalities. Medical Work 8(1): 31–61.Google Scholar
  4. Bowker GC, Star SL (1999) Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  5. Brady T, Tierney M, Williams R (1992) The commodification of industry applications software. Industrial and Corporate Change 1(3): 489–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clausen C, Williams R (1997) The social shaping of computer-aided production management and computer-integrated manufacture. Office of Official Publications of European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  7. Cornford J, Pollock N (2003) Putting the University Online: Information, Technology and Organizational Change. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Ellingsen G, Monteiro 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
  9. Fincham R, Fleck J, Procter R, Scarbrough H, Tierney M, Williams R (1994) Expertise and Innovation: Information Technology Strategies in the Financial Services Sector. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Fleck J (1988) The development of information integration: Beyond CIM? Edinburgh PICT Working Paper No. 9, Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
  11. Hardstone G (April, 2002) PiMS Implementation: Preliminary feedback to BPCT, first interim report, unpublished (commercial-in-confidence).Google Scholar
  12. Hartswood M, Procter R, Rouncefield M, Slack R, Voss A, Williams R (2001) Building information systems as universalised locals. In Dittrich K, Egyedi T (eds.) Special issue on standards, compatibility and infrastructure development. Journal of Knowledge, Technology and Policy 14(3): 90–108.Google Scholar
  13. Heath C, Luff P (1996) Documents and professional practice: “Bad” organisational reasons for “good” clinical records. In Proceedings of CSCW’96, Boston, MA, November. ACM Press, pp. 354–362.Google Scholar
  14. Heeks R, Munday D, Salazar A (1999) Why healthcare information systems succeed or fail. Institute for Development Policy and Management Working Paper Series No. 9. ISBN 1 9025 1825X. University of Manchester, Manchester.Google Scholar
  15. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  16. Reddy M, Dourish P, Pratt W (2001) Coordinating heterogeneous work: Information and representation in medical care. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’01), pp. 239–258.Google Scholar
  17. Star SL (1989) The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2. Pitman, London.Google Scholar
  18. Star S (1993). Cooperation without consensus in scientific problem solving: Dynamics of closure in open systems. In Easterbrook SM (ed.) CSCW: Cooperation or Conflict? Springer-Verlag, London, pp. 93–206.Google Scholar
  19. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19: 387–420.Google Scholar
  20. Timmermans S, Berg M (1997). Standardization in action: Achieving universalism and localization in medical protocols. Social Studies of Science 27: 273–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Webster J, Williams R (1993) Mismatch and tension: Standard packages and non-standard users. In Quintas P (ed.) Social Dimensions of Systems Engineering: People, Processes, Policies and Software Development. Ellis Horwood, West Sussex, UK, pp. 179–196.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart Anderson
  • Gillian Hardstone
  • Rob Procter
  • Robin Williams

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations