Thomas W. Malone
Kevin Crowston
ABSTRACT
It is possible to design cooperative work tools based only on “common sense” and good intuitions. But the history of technology is replete with examples of good theories greatly aiding the development of useful technology. Where, then, might we look for theories to help us design computer-supported cooperative work tools? In this paper, we will describe one possible perspective—the interdisciplinary study of coordination—that focuses, in part, on how people work together now and how they might do so differently with new information technologies.
In one sense, there is little that is new about the study of coordination. Many different disciplines—including computer science, sociology, political science, management science, systems theory, economics, linguistics, and psychology—have all dealt, in one way or another, with fundamental questions about coordination. Furthermore, several previous writers have suggested that theories about coordination are likely to be important for designing cooperative work tools (e.g., [Holt88], [Wino86]).
We hope to suggest here, however, that the potential for fruitful interdisciplinary connections concerning coordination is much greater than has as yet been widely appreciated. For instance, we believe that fundamentally similar coordination phenomena arise—unrecognized as such—in many of the fields listed above. Though a single coherent body of theory about coordination does not yet exist, many different disciplines could both contribute to and benefit from more general theories of coordination. Of particular interest to researchers in the field of computer-supported cooperative work is the prospect of drawing on a much richer body of existing and future work in these fields than has previously been suggested.
In this paper, we will first describe what we mean by “coordination theory” and give examples of how previous research on computer-supported cooperative work can be interpreted from this perspective. We will then suggest one way of developing this perspective further by proposing tentative definitions of coordination and analyzing its components in more detail.
- Amer81.American Heritage Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981.Google Scholar
- Bali86.Baligh, H. H. Decision rules and wansaftions, organizations and markets. Management Science,32, 1480-1491, 1986. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bali81.Baligh, H. H., Burton, R. M. Describing and designing organizational structures and processes. International Journal of Policy Analysis and Information Systems, 5, 251-266, 1981.Google Scholar
- Barn64.Barnard, C. I. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1964.Google Scholar
- Beer67.Beer, S. Cybernetics and Management (2nd ed.). London: English Universities Press, 1967.Google Scholar
- Boul56.Boulding, K.E. The Image. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 1956.Google Scholar
- Cibo87.Ciborra, C. U. Reframing the role of computers in organizations: The transaction costs approach. Office Technology and People, 3, 17-38, 1987.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Conk88.Conldin, J., Begeman, M. L. gIBIS: A hyi~rtext tooling for exploratory policy discussion. In Tatar, D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work (pp. 140-152). New York: ACM, 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Crow90.Crowston, K. Modeling Coordination in Organizations. Ph.D. Dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Forthcoming (1990).Google Scholar
- Curt89.Curtis, B. Modeling coordination from field experiments. In Organizational Computing, Coordination and Collaboration: Theories and Technologies for Computer-Supported Work. Austin, TX, 1989.Google Scholar
- Debr59.Debreu, G. Theory of value" An axiomatic analysis of economic equilibrium. New York: Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
- Emer69.Emery, j. C. Organizational Planning and Control Systems: Theory and Technology. New York: MacMillan, 1969.Google Scholar
- Erma80.Erman, L. D., Hayes-Roth, F., Less~r, V. R., Reddy, D. R. The HEARSAY-II speech understanding system: Integrating knowledge to resolve uncertainty. Computing Surveys, 12(2), 213-253, 1980. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Flor88.Flores, F., Graves, M., Hartfield, B., Winograd, T. Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6(2), 153-172, 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Forr80.Forrester, J. W. Systems dynamics. New York: North-Holland, 1980.Google Scholar
- Fox81.Fox, M. S. An organizational view of distributed systems. I EEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 11(1), 70-79, 1981.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Galb73.Galbraith, J. R. Designing Complex Organizatiotts. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1973. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gard85.Gardner, D. The Mind's New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution. NewYork: Basic, 1985, Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hart90.Hart, P. & Estdn, D. Intet-org~on computer networks: Indications of shifts in intcxdcpendenc~. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Office Information Systems, Cambridge, MA, April 25-27, 1990. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hewi86.HewitI, C. Offices are open systems. ACM Transactions on Office Systems, 4(3), 271-287, 1986. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Holt89.Holt, A. Personal communication., 1989.Google Scholar
- Holt88.Holt, A. W. Diplans: A new language for the study and implementation of coordination. ACM Transactions on Off'we information Systems, 6(2), 109- 125, 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hube88.Huberman, B. A. (Eds.). The Ecology of Computation . Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Korn81.Kornfeld, W. A., Hewitt, C. The scientific community metaphor. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-11, 24-33, 1981.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lai88.Lai, K. Y., Malone, T., Yu, K.-C. Object Lens: A spreadsheet for etx~perative work. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, (Oct), 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lawr67.Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J.W. Organization and Environment. Boston: Graduate School of Business Adminsitration, Harvard University, 1967.Google Scholar
- Lee90a.Lee, J. Sibyl: A qualitative decision management system. In Winston, P. (Ed.), Arto'icial Intelligence at MIT: Expanding Frontiers Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lee90b.Lee, J., Malone, T. W. Partially Shared Views: A scheme for communicating among groups that use different type hierarchies. A CM Transactions on Information Systems, 8, 1-26, 1990. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Malo87a.Malone, T.W. Computer support for organizations: Towards an organizational science. In Carroll, j. (Ed.), Interfacing Thought: Cognitive Aspects of Human Computer Interactions Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Malo87b.Malone, T. W. Modeling coordination in organizations and markets. Management Science, 33, 1317-1332, 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Malo88a.Malone, T. W. What is coordination theory? (Working paper #2051-88). Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School of Management, 1988.Google Scholar
- Malo90.Malone, T.W. Organizing information processing systems: Parallels between organizations and computer systems. In Zachary, W., Robextson, S., Black, J. (Ed.), Cognition, Computation, and Cooperation (pp. 56~3). Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1990. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Malo87c.Malone, T. W., Grant, K. R., Turbak, F. A., Brobst, S. A., Cohen, M. D. intelligent information-sharing systems. Communications of the ACM, 30, 390-402, 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Malo88b.Malone, T. W., Smith, S.A. Modeling the performance of organizational strictures. Operations Research, 36(3), 421-436, 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McGr84.McGrath, J.E. Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.Google Scholar
- Mill88.Miller, M. S., Drexler, K.E. Markets and computation: Agoric open systems. In Huborman, B. A. (Ed.), The Ecology of Computation (pp. 133- 176). Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1988.Google Scholar
- Mins87.Minsky, M. The Society of the Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987.Google Scholar
- Mint79.Mintzberg, H. The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979.Google Scholar
- Nii86.Nii, P. The blackboard model of problem solving. The AI Magazine, (Spring), 38-53, 1986. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Norm80.Norman, D. A. Twelve issues for cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4, 1-32, 1980.Google ScholarCross Ref
- NSF89.NSF-IRIS. A report by the NSF-IRIS Review Panel for Research on Coordination Theory and Technology. Available from NSF Forms & Publications Unit, 1989.Google Scholar
- Pfef78.Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. R. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependency Perspective. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.Google Scholar
- Sche60.Schelling, T. C. Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.Google Scholar
- Sear75.Searle, J. R. A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Gunderson, K. (Ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge (pp. 344--369). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1975.Google Scholar
- Rock89.Rockart, J. F. & Short, J. E. IT and the networked organization: Toward more effective management of interdependence. In M. S. Scott Morton (Ed.), Management in the 1990s Research Program Final Report. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1989.Google Scholar
- Smit81.Smith, R. G., Davis, R. Frameworks for cooperation in distributed problem solving. 1EEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 11(1), 61- 70, 1981.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Such87.Suchman, L. A. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thom67.Thompson, J. D. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.Google Scholar
- Turo83.Turoff, M. Information, value, and the internal marketplace (Unpublished manuscript). New Jersey Institute of Technology, 1983.Google Scholar
- vonB50.yon Bertalanffy, L. The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science, 111, 1950.Google Scholar
- Wien61.Wiener, N. Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Mach/ne (2rid ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Pm~, 1961. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Will85.WiUiamson, O. The Economic Institutions of Capitah'sm. New York: Free Press, i985.Google Scholar
- Wino87.Winograd, T. A language/action perspective on the design of cooperative work. Human Computer Interaction, 3, 3-30, 1987.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wino86.Winograd, T., Flores, F. Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- What is coordination theory and how can it help design cooperative work systems?
Recommendations
Ethnography, theory and systems design
Understanding work and designing artefactsThe idea for this paper came from a debate at the 1998 ISCRAT conference in Denmark on cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT). A leading activist in the movement to bring CHAT into systems design, Bonnie Nardi, asked the question; would design not ...
Work-focused analysis and design
Special Issue on Human-automation CoagencyThe past decade has seen papers in this journal and other cognitive engineering publications expressing concern about some of our foundational ideas. Cognition, a central construct for this journal, is one that some authors would see banished. Function ...
Can naturalism explain consciousness? A critique
The problem of consciousness is one of the most important problems both in cognitive science and in philosophy. There are different philosophers and different scientists who define consciousness and explain it differently. In philosophy, `consciousness' ...
Comments