Ownership and Evolution of Local Process Representations

  • Thomas P. Moran
  • Tara L. Matthews
  • Laurian Vega
  • Barton Smith
  • James Lin
  • Stephen Dill
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5726)


Knowledge workers tailor collaborative business processes to local conditions. They own (i.e., create and maintain) representations of these local processes (such as checklists) to guide the work. Our goal is to design tools to support the ownership of collaborative local processes by enabling workers to flexibly adapt process representations to work situations. This paper focuses on how workers evolve representations for collaborative, locally-owned processes by updating them from situated experiences to keep up with changing business conditions. To understand this, we conducted a field study and a lab study. From the field study, we describe how factors like group roles and documentation purposes affect the evolution of process representations. Based on these observations, we propose a model of the practice of evolving local process representations that provides a framework for understanding activity documentation needs. The lab study then provides behavioral details on the ways people carried out the evolution practice. These studies yield design implications for collaborative activity support tools.


Coordination collaboration business processes activities work practices process evolution 


  1. 1.
    Dourish, P.: Process descriptions as organisational accounting devices: the dual use of workflow technologies. In: Proceedings of the 2001 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 52–60. ACM, Boulder (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Suchman, L.: Making work visible. Communications of the ACM, 56 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kogan, S.L., Muller, M.J.: Ethnographic study of collaborative knowledge work. IBM Systems Journal 45(4) (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sachs, P.: Transforming work: collaboration, learning, and design. Communications of the ACM, 36–44 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schmidt, K., Simone, C.: Coordination Mechanisms: Towards a Conceptual Foundation of CSCW Systems Design. In: Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 5, pp. 155–200 (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerson, E.M., Star, S.L.: Analyzing due process in the workplace. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 257–270 (1986)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Suchman, L.A.: Office procedure as practical action: models of work and system design. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 1(4), 320–328 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer, G., Ostwald, J.: Knowledge Management: Problems, Promises, Realities, and Challenges. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(1), 60–72 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hardstone, G., d’Adderio, L., Williams, R.: Standardization, Trust and Dependability. In: Clark, K., et al. (eds.) Trust in Technology: A Socio-technical Perspective, pp. 69–103. Springer, Dordrecht (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bertelsen, O.W.: Organisational learning is crystallised into artefacts. SIGOIS Bull. 17(3), 37–39 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuutti, K.: Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In: Nardi, B.A. (ed.) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 17–44. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seifert, C.M., Hutchins, E.L.: Error as opportunity: learning in a cooperative task. Human-Computer Interaction 7(4), 409–435 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halverson, C.A., Erickson, T., Ackerman, M.S.: Behind the help desk: evolution of a knowledge management system in a large organization. In: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pp. 304–313. ACM, Chicago (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Markus, M.L.: Toward a Theory of Knowledge Reuse: Types of Knowledge Reuse Situations and Factors in Reuse Success. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1), 57–93 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ackerman, M.S., Halverson, C.: Considering an organization’s memory. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pp. 39–48. ACM, Seattle (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clancey, W.J., et al.: Brahms: simulating practice for work systems design. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 49(6), 831–865 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cluts, M.M.: The evolution of artifacts in cooperative work: constructing meaning through activity. In: Proceedings of the 2003 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work, pp. 144–152. ACM, Sanibel Island (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Feldman, M.S.: Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change. Organization Science 11(6), 611–629 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pentland, B.T., Feldman, M.S.: Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change 14(5), 793–815 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wasserman, A.I., Shewmake, D.T.: Rapid prototyping of interactive information systems. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Rapid Prototyping, Columbia, Maryland. ACM Press, New York (1982)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas P. Moran
    • 1
  • Tara L. Matthews
    • 1
  • Laurian Vega
    • 2
  • Barton Smith
    • 1
  • James Lin
    • 1
  • Stephen Dill
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM Almaden Research Center, San JoseCaliforniaUSA
  2. 2.Center for Computer-Human InteractionVirginia Tech, BlacksburgVirginiaUSA

Personalised recommendations