From System Development toward Work Improvement: Developmental Work Research as a Potential Partner Method for EUD

  • Anna-Liisa Syrjänen
  • Kari Kuutti
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6654)


The dominant strategy within the field of EUD has been to improve end-user activities within a single software system. This approach has some limitations. First, the work environment often consists of a number of different systems and tools that form an information ecology with which users must cope. Second, the use of computers is embedded in organizational practices that may also need to be changed. Thus, there is a need to combine EUD with a parallel development of work practices. However, common work-development approaches, for example, process improvement, usually adopt a top-down managerial point of view that relies on expert modeling, and are therefore incompatible with EUD ideas. This paper suggests that a work improvement method developed in Finland since the 1980s, developmental work research, is a good candidate for partnering with EUD, because it takes the potential of local grassroots innovation and the development of work practices seriously.


Systems Design End-User Development Developmental Work Research Information Ecology Workplace Technology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Blum, B.I.: Beyond Programming. To a New Era of Design. Oxford University Press, New York (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martin, J.: Application Development without Programmers. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1982)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cypher, A., et al. (eds.): Watch What I Do: Programming by Demonstration. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allen, C.: Reciprocal Evolution as a Strategy for Integrating Basic Research, Design, and Studies of Work Practice. In: Schuler, D., Namioka, A. (eds.) Participatory Design: Principles and Practices, pp. 239–253. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jordan, B.: Ethnographic Workplace Studies and CSCW. In: Shapiro, D., Tauber, M., Traunmuller, R. (eds.) The Design of Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Groupware Systems, pp. 17–42. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nardi, B.A.: A Small Matter of Programming: Perspectives on End User Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Star, L.S. (ed.): Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lieberman, H. (ed.): Your Wish Is My Command: Programming by Example. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lieberman, H., Paternó, F., Wulf, V. (eds.): End-User Development. Springer, Dordrecht (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nardi, B.A., O’Day, V.L.: Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forlizzi, J.: The Product Ecology: Understanding Social Product Use and Supporting Design Culture. International Journal of Design 2(1), 11–20 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jung, H., et al.: Toward a Framework for Ecologies of artifacts: How Are Digital Artifacts Interconnected within a Personal Life? In: NordiCHI 2008, pp. 201–210. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K.: Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beirne, M., Ramsay, H., Panteli, A.: Participating Informally: Opportunities and Dilemmas in User-Driven Design. In: PDC 1996, pp. 209–217. CPSR, Palo Alto (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clement, A.: Computing at Work: Empowering Action by ’Low-Level Users’. Communications of the ACM 37(1), 53–63 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iivari, J., Iivari, N.: Varieties of User-Centeredness: An Analysis of Four Systems Development Methods. Information Systems Journal 21, 125–153 (in press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oudshoor, N., Pinch, T. (eds.): How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kay, A.: Foreword. In: Cypher, A., et al. (eds.) Watch What I Do: Programming by Demonstration, pp. xi–xvi. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bødker, S., Christiansen, E.: Designing for Ephemerality and Prototypicality. In: DIS 2004, pp. 255–260. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Floyd, I.R., Twidale, M.B.: Learning Design from Emergent Co-Design: Observed Practices and Future Directions. In: PDC 2008 (2008),
  21. 21.
    Greenbaum, J.: A Design of One’s Own: Toward Participatory Design in the United States. In: Schuler, D., Namioka, A. (eds.) Participatory Design: Principles and Practices, pp. 27–37. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey (1993)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iivari, J., Igbaria, M.: Determinants of User Participation: A Finnish Survey. Behaviour & Information Technology 16(2), 111–121 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iivari, N., et al.: Mediation between Design and Use - Revisiting Five Empirical Studies. Human IT 10(2), 119–164 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bødker, S., Iversen, O.S.: Starting a Professional Participatory Design Practice - Moving PD Beyond the Initial Fascination of User Involvement. In: NordiCHI 2002, pp. 11–18. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nardi, B.A., Engeström, Y.: A Web on the Wind: The Structure of Invisible Work. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8, 1–8 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Henfridsson, O.: Beyond the Container-View of Context in IS Research. In: ECIS 1998, pp. 673–683 (1998)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Engeström, Y.: Learning by Expanding. An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki (1987)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kuutti, K.: Activity Theory, Transformation of Work, and Information System Design. In: Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., Punamäki, R. (eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory, pp. 360–375. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Engeström, Y., Ahonen, H.: On the Materiality of Social Capital: An Activity-Theoretical Exploration. In: Engeström, Y. (ed.) Activity Theory and Social Capital, pp. 1–16. Helsinki University Press, Helsinki (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Syrjänen, A.-L., Kuutti, K.: Analysing IT and Communities of Practice. In: ECIS 2006, CD-ROM (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Newman, M.W., et al.: Designing for Serendipity: Supporting End-User Configuration of Ubiquitous Computing Environments. In: DIS 2002, pp. 147–156. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Won, M., Stiemerling, O., Wulf, V.: Component-Based Approaches to Tailorable Systems. In: Lieberman, H., Paternó, F., Wulf, V. (eds.) End-User Development, pp. 115–141. Springer, Dordrecht (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Huysman, M., Wulf, V. (eds.): Social Capital and the Role of Information Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Clemmensen, T.: Community Knowledge in an Emerging Online Professional Community. The Case of Sigchi.Dk. Knowledge and Process Management 12(1), 43–52 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E.: Meta-Design: A Framework for the Future of End-User Development. In: Lieberman, H., Paternó, F., Wulf, V. (eds.) End-User Development, pp. 425–457. Springer, Dordrecht (2006)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Engeström, Y. (ed.): Developmental Work Research: Expanding Activity Theory in Practice. Lehmanns Media, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Virkkunen, J., Kuutti, K.: Understanding Organizational Learning by Focusing On “Activity Systems”. Accounting, Management and Information Technology 10(4), 291–319 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    CMMI-SVC: CMMI® for Services, Improving Processes for Providing Better Services, Technical Report, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University (2010) Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Malhotra, Y.: Business Process Redesign: An Overview. IEEE Engineering Management Review 26(3) (Fall 1998)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Toulmin, S., Gustavsen, B. (eds.): Beyond Theory. Changing Organizations through Participation. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1996)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rogers, Y.: Reconfiguring the Social Scientist: Shifting from Prescription to Proactive Research. In: Bowker, G., Star, L.S., Turner, B. (eds.) Bridging the Great Divide: Social Science, Technical Systems and Cooperative Work, pp. 57–78. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1997)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Engeström, Y.: Kehittävän Työntutkimuksen Peruskäsitteitä (Basic Concepts of Developmental Work Research). Aikuiskasvatus 4, 156–164 (1985)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kerosuo, H., Kajamaa, A., Engeström, Y.: Promoting Innovation and Learning through Change Laboratory: An Example from Finnish Health Care. Central European Journal of Public Policy 4(1), 110–131 (2010)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Engeström, Y., et al.: The Change Laboratory as a Tool for Transforming Work. Life Long Learning in Europe 2, 10–17 (1996)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Engeström, Y.: Putting Vygotsky to Work: The Change Laboratory as an Application of Double Stimulation. In: Daniels, H., Cole, M., Wertch, V. (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky, pp. 363–382. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna-Liisa Syrjänen
    • 1
  • Kari Kuutti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Processing ScienceUniversity of OuluFinland

Personalised recommendations