Organisational IT Managed from the Shop Floor: Developing Participatory Design on the Organisational Arena

Part of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work book series (CSCW)


Modern organisations need to be able to adjust to changes in the environment, changes which are ever more rapid, and in doing so capitalise on the creativity and innovations of their employees. As suggested by Boulus-Rødje and Bjørn (Chap. 14), information technology (IT) applications today are likely to take the form of complex, integrated infrastructures, supporting collaboration within and across organisations. This places requirements on the IT infrastructure. As the work practices within an organisation change, the supporting infrastructure also needs to evolve.


Information Technology Shop Floor Infrastructure Development Business Plan Enterprise Architecture 
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. Andreu, R., & Ciborra, C. (1996). Core capabilities and information technology: An organisational learning approach. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 5(2), 111–127.Google Scholar
  2. Andreu, R., & Ciborra, C. (1998). Organisational learning and core capabilities. Information technology and organisational transformation. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. (2004). Special issue on action research in information systems: Making IS research relevant to practice-foreword. MIS Quarterly, 28, 329–336.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, K., & Andres, C. (2004). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  6. Bernard, S. A. (2005). An introduction to enterprise architecture. Bloomington: AuthorHouse.Google Scholar
  7. Bødker, K., Kensing, F., & Simonsen, J. (2004). Participatory IT design. Designing for business and workplace realities. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Action research: Its nature and validity. System Practice and Action Research, 11(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ciborra, C. (2000). From control to drift: The dynamics of corporate information infrastructures. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Clement, A., & van den Besselaar, P. (1993). A retrospective look at PD projects. Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costabile, M. F., Dittrich, Y., Fischer, G., & Piccinno, A. (2011, June 7–10). End-user development – Third international symposium, IS-EUD 2011, Torre Canne, Italy, Proceedings. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Dittrich, Y., Eriksén, S., & Hansson, C. (2002). PD in the wild; evolving practices of design in use. In Proceedings of the participatory design conference, Malmo, Sweden. Computer professionals for social responsibility, pp. 124–134.Google Scholar
  13. Dittrich, Y., Rönkkö, K., Eriksson, J., Hansson, C., & Lindeberg, O. (2008). Cooperative method development. Empirical Software Engineering, 13(3), 231–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eriksén, S. (1998, September 30). Knowing and the art of IT management: An inquiry into work practices in one-stop shops. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
  15. Floyd, C., Reisin, F., & Schmidt, G. (1989). STEPS to software development with users. ESEC, 89, 48–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Floyd, C., Züllighoven, H., & Budde, R. (1992). Software development and reality construction. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gärtner, J., & Wagner, I. (1996a). Systems as intermediaries political frameworks of design & participation. Human-Computer Interaction, 1–11.Google Scholar
  18. Gärtner, J., & Wagner, I. (1996b). Mapping actors and agendas: Political frameworks of systems design and participation. Human-computer interaction, proceedings of PDC. Computer professionals for social responsibility, pp. 37–46.Google Scholar
  19. Georges, L., Romme, A., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (1999). Circular organising and triple loop learning. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 12(5), 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenbaum, J., & Kyng, M. (1992). Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 169–196.Google Scholar
  21. Hanseth, O., & Braa, K. (2001). Hunting for the treasure at the end of the rainbow: Standardizing corporate IT infrastructure. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 10(3), 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hedman, J., & Kalling, T. (2002). IT and business models: Concepts and theories. Recherche, 67, 02.Google Scholar
  23. Karasti, H., & Syrjänen, A.-L. (2004). Artful infrastructuring in two cases of community PD (Vol. 1). Presented at the PDC 04: Proceedings of the eighth conference on participatory design: Artful integration: Interweaving media, materials and practices (Vol 1, pp. 20–30). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  24. Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 7(3–4), 167–185.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Kyng, M. (1995). Making representations work. Communications of the ACM, 38(9), 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lieberman, H., Paternò, F., Klann, M., & Wulf, V. (Eds.). (2006). End-user development: An emerging paradigm. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Peppard, J. (1999). Information management in the global enterprise: An organising framework. European Journal of Information Systems, 8, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (2009). Infrastructuring: Towards an integrated perspective on the design and use of Information technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(5), 447–473.Google Scholar
  29. Romme, G. (1996). A note on the hierarchy-team debate. Strategic Management Journal, 17(5), 411–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Romme, G., & Dillen, R. (1997). Mapping the landscape of organisational learning. European Management Journal, 15(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simonsen, J., & Hertzum, M. (2012). Sustained participatory design: Extending the iterative approach. Design Issues, 28(3), 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Star, S., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication (Learning in doing: Social, cognitive and computational perspectives). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Suchman, L. (1994). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 2(1), 21–39.Google Scholar
  35. Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wessels, B., Walsh, S., & Adam, E. (2008). Mediating voices: Community participation in the design of E-enabled community care services. The Information Society, 24, 30–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wulf, V., & Rohde, M. (1995). Towards an integrated organisation and technology development. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, practices, methods and techniques (pp. 55–64). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Academic Information ManagerWorld Maritime UniversityMalmöSweden
  3. 3.Software and System SectionIT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations