Coordinative Practices

  • Lars Rune Christensen
Part of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work book series (CSCW)


One of the major research issues in CSCW is the understanding of how cooperative work is coordinated. This issue has often been cast as a question of exploring how articulation work is practiced and supported by way of artifacts. In the words of Strauss, articulation work is a kind of supra-type work in any division of labour, done by the various actors concerning the meshing and integration of interdependent cooperative work tasks (Strauss 1985, p.8). A series of focused, in-depth field studies have been undertaken with the specific purpose of investigating how the distributed activities of cooperative work arrangements are articulated and, in particular, how prescribed artifacts are devised, appropriated and used for these purposes (e.g. Carstensen and Sørensen 1996; Schmidt and Bannon 1992). In this chapter we will first follow in the footsteps of these studies and consider articulation work in the building process, i.e. in meetings, articulation work with coordinative artifacts such as Gantt charts, a file sharing system, and title blocks. Subsequently, within the context of design as well as construction we will consider a phenomenon that contributes to the integration of cooperative work, but perhaps cannot tenably be described as articulation work: We will consider how cooperative work task may be integrated by virtue of individuals acting on the material evidence of work previously accomplished by others.


Ventilation System Construction Work Cooperative Work Articulation Work Building Process 
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.


  1. Anderson, R.J., J.A. Hughes, W.W. Sharrock. 1989. Working for Profit: The Social Organisation of Calculation in an Entrepreneurial Firm. Avebury, Hampshire.Google Scholar
  2. Bittner, E. 1965. The concept of organisation. Social Research 32 239–255.Google Scholar
  3. Carstensen, P., C. Sørensen. 1996. From the Social to the Systematic: Mechanisms supporting coordination in design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. The Journal of Collaborative Computing 5(4) 1996.Google Scholar
  4. Garfinkel, H. 1956. Some sociological concepts and methods for psychiatrists. Psychiatric Paper 6 181–195.Google Scholar
  5. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  6. Harper, R.R., J.A. Hughes, D.Z. Shapiro. 1989. 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
  7. Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  8. Jørgensen, K.A., J. Skauge, P. Christiansson, K. Svidt, K.B. Sørensen, J. Mitchell. 2008. Use of IFC Model Servers: Modelling Collaboration Possibilities in Practice. Aalborg University, Aalborg.Google Scholar
  9. Schmidt, K. 1994. Modes and Mechanisms of Interaction in Cooperative Work. Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark.Google Scholar
  10. Schmidt, K., L. Bannon. 1992. Taking CSCW Seriously: Supporting Articulation Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal. 1(1–2) 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schmidt, K., C. Simone. 1996. Coordination mechanisms: Towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing 5(2–3) 155–200.Google Scholar
  12. Schmidt, K., I. Wagner. 2004. Ordering systems: Coordinative practices and artifacts in architectural design and planning. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): The Journal of Collaborative Computing 13(5–6) 349–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Simon, H.A. 1962. The Architecture of Complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106(6) 467–482.Google Scholar
  14. Sorokin, P.A., R.K. Merton. 1937. Social time: a methodological and functional analysis. American Journal of Sociology(42) 615–629.Google Scholar
  15. Star, S.L. 1989. The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. L. Gasser, M. Huhns, eds. Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Pitman, London, 37–54.Google Scholar
  16. Star, S.L., J.R. Griesemer. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Strauss, A. 1985. Work and the division of labor. The Sociological Quarterly 26(1) 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Suchman, L. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: the Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  19. Tory, M., S. Staub-French, B.A. Po, F. Wu. 2008. Physical and Digital Artifact-Mediated Coordination in Building Design Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) An International Journal 17(4) 311–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Rune Christensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Technologies in Practice GroupIT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations