Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Introduction: Meeting the Challenge of Change Read chapter Read first chapter

2015 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

11. Building Socially Embedded Technologies: Implications About Design

Authors : Federico Cabitza, Carla Simone

Published in: Designing Socially Embedded Technologies in the Real-World

Publisher: Springer London

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The main claim of this chapter is that, in order to bridge the gap between what users need and what is given to them as a solution to those needs, the concept of design has to be substantially challenged and its role in IT development reformulated. To this aim, we submit that an old mythology of design, which is based on the separation between conceptual design and situated use, and consequently on the modeling activity that entails and enacts this separation, should be abandoned in favor of a new mythology. We advocate this new mythology to be grounded on both the notion of performativity, from the conceptual perspective, and on the notion of bricoleur from the more practical perspective. Reviewing and discussing the main tenets of this mythology has brought us to introducing a lean method for the development of socially embedded technologies and to the preliminary proposal of a “logic of bricolage” that specific environments should enact to empower end users in the process of continuous development of their own digital tools. The proposed layered conceptual architecture, as well as the notions that support its conception, have still to prove their practical value in a reasonable range of settings, especially where legacy systems do exist and cannot be “obliterated”. However our hope is that the EUSSET forum will host many similar discourses and give them some sort of legitimacy to inform future common initiatives of research, education, and IT professional practice in the near future.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Interaction Design at Itsme
next chapter Exploring Challenging Environments: Contextual Research in the Car and the Factory Through an HCI Lens
Footnotes
1
If this is true, one could argue that it is probably also because some principles and sensibilities typical within the HCI, CSCW, and PD fields have so to say “trickled down” in the “consciousness” of IT practitioners in the “real” world (cf., e.g., Shapiro 2005; Fitzpatrick and Ellingsen 2012).
 
2
This spectrum of utility evaluation seems to oscillate between the different stances of the philosophers who tried first to understand how to gauge usefulness and satisfaction, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, respectively.
 
3
Here and in the following, the word myth is not opposed to any truth fact, but it is rather used as synonym of “archetypical story” to indicate one possible stance, among many other ones as much as legitimate and reasonable. On the other hand, we keep using the term mythology for its powerful and evocative connotation, although probably the most indicated term would be “metanarrative,” in the sense after Lyotard (1986), i.e., set of narratives that emphasize particular aspects of the practice of IT development and that, in doing so, do not drive practice in any strong sense but rather tell it, legitimate it, and “shape it by helping each participant construct and frame their account of their practice” (Harris and Henderson 1999, p. 89).
 
4
Although the interested reader can refer to the original paper, we here summarize the main high-level recommendations contained in the mythology proposed by Harris and Henderson (1999): that we should i) honor every particularity, even those that do not fit the regularities imposed by the organizational rules; ii) honor accommodation, i.e., the “ad hoc elaboration of rules in use”; and iii) honor change, which is an intrinsic and unavoidable feature of a real world system.
 
5
We will certainly not try to prove this conjecture, as we could never get over the causality fallacy that such a proof would entail (i.e., post hoc, propter hoc).
 
6
For instance, Paley (2007) makes the point that many researches that declare a focus in complex systems do actually refer to the open systems thinking, which between the 1960s and the 1980s was aimed at replacing the Tayloristic organization-as-machine metaphor with the metaphor of organization-as-organism; more curtly, Maguire and McKelvey (1999) assert that most of the references to the complexity theory in the IT-oriented literature are not dissimilar from “mere retellings of old tales, [which use] complexity terminology tacked on retrospectively, gratuitously, and, in many cases, quite awkwardly.”
 
7
Moreover, Ivan Illich was among the first thinkers to denote a similar phenomenon as “principle of (paradoxically) counterproductivity”: once most practices are institutionalized and engineered, they backfire on some of the stakeholders (Illich 1977).
 
8
It should be noted though that “a performative perspective does not delete the idea of representation, but rather views it as a specific aspect of performativity” (Jensen 2005), in that it focuses on the activity of representing, planning, and modeling rather than on the material outcome of those practices.
 
9
Here and elsewhere, we use the term “metaphor“ in the Nietzschean sense, as something that is used to impose order and intelligibility on a world that we cannot access directly.
 
10
The fil rouge binds together unsuspected associates, like Pickering and Latour. One thing that unites these thinkers, for example, is that they are both “happy enough” to speak of material agency in nature without imputing any intentionality to the word “agency” (Pickering 1995, p. 6).
 
11
Yet, we agree with Jensen (2002) when he points out that “the performative turn is a way to refuse the choice between the modern and the post-modern. The modern is about order purity. The post modern is a celebration of fragments and disorder. The performative turn is a series of claims and sensitivities that try to reach a fractional space in between. Something that is beyond the mono-dimensionality of modernity and beyond the free-floating multi-dimensionality of the post-modern. In this sense it has much in common with the parts of the Actor Network Theory tradition that claim to be non-modern.”
 
12
To support the legitimacy of the performative turn, we here recall that our ancestors (i.e., Latin, Greek, and Old English) used the words “res,” “pragma,” and “thing” (respectively) in order to denote an affair, a deed, a business, or an assembly (Telier 2011, p. 1), as well as the matters that were discussed and deliberated in such occasions and meetings. In other words, subject and object did not need to be disentangled on such occasions.
 
13
It is nevertheless worthy of note that the meaning of performance as “performing a play” or “playing a drama” is much later than the more general meaning of “carrying out a promise” or “carrying in effect something” that dates from the sixteenth century.
 
14
We are referring to the famous passage in The Genealogy of Morals where Nietzsche pointed out that “there is no ‘being’ behind doing, acting, becoming: ‘the doer’ is merely a fiction added to the ‘doing’. Doing is all” (original: es giebt kein ‘Sein’ hinter dem Thun, Wirken, Werden; ‘der Thaeter’ ist zum Thun bloss hinzugedichtet, − das Thun ist Alles).
 
15
Equipment can be seen as a term which denotes those things, or artifacts, that the Dasein encounters in fluent use, entangled and experienced in performance, when they are ready- to- hand (Zuhandenheit).
 
16
This was honestly admitted by Jensen (2008), who has nevertheless advocated a better consideration of these ideas within those traditions. However, two years later, Bratteteig et al. (2010, p. 31) have conversely recognized that “the performative turn in post-structuralism is perhaps under-articulated in design research.”
 
18
This could have also laid the concept of situatedness open to some representationalist drifts: cf., e.g., the connotations acquired by the term “context,” among which that of “container-like” (Suchman 2006, p. 19), in IT-related discourses about “context-aware systems.”
 
19
Including planning itself or “calling out a plan as a self-standing artifact”: cf., respectively, p. 17 and 21
 
20
In Human-Machine Reconfigurations, Suchman speaks of situatedness only once and only to challenge the meaning intended for such term by Rodney Brooks, the MIT engineer that questioned symbolic representational approaches in the field of robotics, as she found such meaning “evacuated of sociality.”
 
21
Including people, like Lave and Wenger (1991), who lament the vagueness of the definition itself of situatedness
 
22
Ciborra (2006) writes: “‘Situated’ is the translation of the German ‘befindlich’; situatedness is ‘befindlichkeit’. [The former term] not only refers to the circumstances one finds himself or herself in, but also to his or her ‘inner situation’, disposition, mood, affectedness and emotion.”
 
23
Of course someone has still to develop the technological artifact, and someone else pays the bills.
 
24
Thomas Erickson, 2000, allegedly written upon reading a commentary for a special issue of CSCW Journal on Theory
 
25
That is, as “an autonomic and contingent occurrence with its own conditions and its own time-structure, [in respect to which] the meaning of the past for the present is not fixed but radically ambiguous” (Dirksmeier and Helbrecht 2008), i.e., inextricably intertwined with the given situation
 
26
cf. the principle of encapsulation, which is defined by Grady Booch as “the process of compartmentalizing the elements of an abstraction”
 
27
This passage is strongly influenced by the reading of Nietzsche by Derrida in “Structure, Sign, and Play,” where the Nietzschean perspective is related to “the joyous affirmation of the play of the world and of the innocence of becoming, the affirmation of a world of signs without fault, without truth, and without origin which is offered to an active interpretation.” Bricolage itself is a concept that urges us considering system development as a game-related social undertaking.
 
28
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 4.116
 
29
This expression is taken from Illich. A convivial tool is defined as “that which gives each person who uses it the greatest opportunity to enrich the environment with the fruits of his or her labour” (Illich 1973).
 
30
Beath and Orlikowski (1994) show how most of the user-centered development methodologies that put a strong emphasis on user involvement (they make the case of information engineering) actually relegate users to playing a relatively passive role during development and, in virtue of this, ask for a more clear responsibility for project outcomes. We stress here the need to give full control, rather than only responsibility, to the community of users that will host the information system.
 
31
The COmputer-based Mechanisms of Interaction in Cooperative work project was an EC-ESPRIT-funded basic research project No. 6225, from 1992 to 1995.
 
32
We prefer the expression “layout structure” instead of “information structure” (or “data structure”), which would perhaps be the traditional mode to indicate those structures, as the latter term would have given the nod to the high-level, conceptual element those structures could be referred to by a human user. Conversely, we mean to hint at the material, spatial arrangement of meaningful signs that “act at the surface” in promoting cognitive processes of sense making and interpretation.
 
33
We recall here the requirement that bricoleurs already know the available pieces (see Section 3).
 
34
We are aware that buyers, top management executives, middle management officers, more or less official and institutionalized representatives of business units, and their employees have always been part and parcel of the development process of a corporate information system. However, articulating the reconfiguration of the larger actor network that encompasses all these levels of involvement and accountability would be out of the chapter’s scope.
 
35
Cabitza and Simone (2012c) show that this divide has historical roots, and hence it is contingent. In particular, the “divide” took place approximately in the second half of the 1950s when the computer, which had been thus far intended only as a mathematical instrument for which each of its users had to write his/her own code to be executed when it was his/her turn, became a full-fledged time-sharing equipment and established itself as a business machine or better yet an electronic data-processing machine (O’Neill 1992; Campbell-Kelly and Aspray 2004).
 
36
And this is not completely by chance: mee’yootah vs. ’mee-tah.
 
37
A list of this kind of questions can be found in Cabitza et al. (2014b).
 
38
If the worst occurs, e.g., if power goes down, the overall socio-technical system is made more resilient simply by printing out some layout structures on paper and having the users work as usual, just without the computational augmentation of those structures.
 
39
A short literature review of this concept can be found in (Cabitza and Simone 2013b).
 
40
To make a very long story short, legacy systems that automated data structures can – and should – be preserved and wrapped as new local nodes of the network described in Section 6.​2; but what destiny to give to those legacy systems that once “automated” procedures and workflows…?
 
Literature
Akera, A., & Aspray, W. (Eds.). (2004). Using history to teach computer science and related disciplines. Washington, DC: Computing Research Association.
Anderson, T. R., & Slotkin, T. A. (1975). Maturation of the adrenal medulla–IV. Effects of morphine. Biochemical Pharmacology, 24(16), 1469–1474.
Anderson, S., Hardstone, G., Procter, R., & Williams, R. (2008). Down in the (Data)base(ment): Supporting configuration in organizational information systems. In Resources, co-evolution and artifacts (pp. 221–253). London: Springer. Retrieved from dx.doi.org/10.​1007/​978-1-84628-901-9_​9
Angell, I., & Ilharco, F. (2009). Dispositioning IT all: A theory for thriving without models. In Bricolage, care and information Claudio Ciborra’s legacy in information systems research (pp. 401–422). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ardito, C., Costabile, M. F., Matera, M., Piccinno, A., Desolda, G., & Picozzi, M. (2012). Composition of situational interactive spaces by end users. In NordiCHI 2012: Proceedings of the 7th nordic conference on human-computer interaction: Making sense through design, October 14th–17th, Copenhagen, Denmark. ACM Press.
Ash, J. S., Berg, M., & Coiera, E. (2004). Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: The nature of patient care information system-related errors. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11(2), 104–112. doi:10.​1197/​jamia.​M1471.
Balasubramaniam, S., Lewis, G. A., Simanta, S., & Smith, D. B. (2008). Situated software: Concepts, motivation, technology, and the future. Software, 25(6), 50–55. doi:10.​1109/​MS.​2008.​159.
Bandini, S., & Simone, C. (2006). EUD as integration of components off-the-shelf: The role of software professionals knowledge artifacts. In End user development (Vol. 9, pp. 347–369). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bannon, L. (1992). From human factors to human actors: The role of psychology and human-computer interaction studies in system design. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work (pp. 25–44). Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc. Retrieved from dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id = 125470.125458
Bannon, L. (1994). CSCW, challenging perspectives on work and technology. In Proceedings of the “Information Technology & Organisational Change” Nijenrode Business School, The Netherlands, 28–29 April, 1994.
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831. doi:10.​1086/​345321.
Bath, C. (2009). Searching for methodology: Feminist technology design in computer science. In Proceedings of the 5th European symposium on gender & ICT digital cultures: Participation - Empowerment - Diversity, March 5–7, 2009, University of Bremen, Bremen.
Beath, C. M., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). The contradictory structure of systems development methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-user relationship in information engineering. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 350–377. doi:10.​1287/​isre.​5.​4.​350.
Berg, M. (1999). Accumulating and coordinating: Occasions for information technologies in medical work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 8(4), 373–401.
Beynon-Davies, P. (2011). Significance: Exploring the nature of information, systems and technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Blackwell, A. L., & Green, A. L. (2008). The abstract is “an enemy”. Alternative perspectives to computational thinking. In PPIG 08: Proceedings of the 20th workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group. 10–12 Sept 2008, Lancaster, UK.
Blackwell, A. F., & Morrison, C. (2010). A logical mind, not a programming mind: Psychology of a professional end user. In PPIG 2010: Proceedings of the 22nd annual workshop of the psychology of programming interest group, September 19–22, 2010. Madrid, Spain(pp. 175–184). University of Lancaster.
Bowers, J. M. (1991). The Janus faces of design: Some critical questions for CSCW. In J. M. Bowers & S. D. Benford (Eds.), Studies in computer supported cooperative work (pp. 333–350). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing Co. Retrieved from dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id = 117730.117753
Bramming, P., Hansen, B. G., Bojesen, A., & Olesen, K. G. (2012). (Im)perfect pictures: Snaplogs in performativity research. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 7(1), 54–71. doi:10.​1108/​1746564121122346​5.
Brand, S. (1995). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. New York: Penguin Books.
Bratteteig, T., Morrison, A., & Wagner, I. (2010). Research practices in digital design. In Exploring digital design: Multi-disciplinary design practices (pp. 17–54). Berlin: Springer.
Bringay, S., Barry, C., & Charlet, J. (2006). Annotations: A functionality to support cooperation, coordination and awareness in the electronic medical record. In COOP’06: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on the design of cooperative systems, France, Provence.
Bryant, A. (2000). It’s engineering Jim… but not as we know it: Software engineering; solution to the software crisis, or part of the problem? In ICSE’00: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on software engineering (pp. 78–87). New York: ACM. doi:10.​1145/​337180.​337191.
Buescher, M., Gill, S., Mogensen, P., & Shapiro, D. (2001). Landscapes of practice: Bricolage as a method for situated design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 10(1), 1–28. doi:10.​1023/​A:​1011293210539.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. New York: Routledge.
Cabitza, F. (2011). “Remain Faithful to the Earth!”: Reporting experiences of artifact-centered design in healthcare. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 20(4), 231–263. doi:10.​1007/​s10606-011-9143-1.
Cabitza, F. (2014). De-designing the IT artifact. Drafting small narratives for the coming of the Socio-Technical Artifact. In ItAIS 2014, Proceedings of the 11th conference of the Italian chapter of AIS - Digital innovation and inclusive knowledge in times of change, track on design and re-design of socio-technical systems, November 21–22, 2014, Genova, Italy.
Cabitza, F., & Gesso, I. (2011). Web of active documents: An architecture for flexible electronic patient records. In A. Fred, J. Filipe, & H. Gamboa (Eds.), Biomedical engineering systems and technologies (Vol. 127, pp. 44–56). IADIS, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Cabitza, F., & Gesso, I. (2012). Rule-based programming as easy as a child’s play. A user study on active documents. In IHCI’12: IADIS international conference interfaces and human computer interaction 2012 Lisbon, Portugal, 21–23 July 2012 (pp. 73–80). IADIS Press (online).
Cabitza, F., & Simone, C. (2010). WOAD: A framework to enable the end-user development of coordination oriented functionalities. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 22(2), 1–20. doi:10.​4018/​joeuc.​2010101905.
Cabitza, F., & Simone, C. (2012a). “Whatever Works”: Making sense of information quality on information system artifacts. In G. Viscusi, G. M. Campagnolo, & Y. Curzi (Eds.), Phenomenology, organizational politics, and IT design: The social study of information systems (pp. 79–110). IGI Global. Retrieved from 10.​4018/​978-1-4666-0303-5.​ch006
Cabitza, F., & Simone, C. (2012b). Affording mechanisms: An integrated view of coordination and knowledge management. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 21(2), 227–260. doi:10.​1007/​s10606-011-9153-z.
Cabitza, F., & Simone, C. (2012c). Design Ltd.: Renovated Myths for the Development of Socially Embedded Technologies, arXiv:1211.5577v3 [cs.HC].
Cabitza, F., & Simone, C. (2013a). Computational coordination mechanisms: A tale of a struggle for flexibility. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 22(4–6), 475–529. doi:10.​1007/​s10606-013-9187-5.
Cabitza, F., & Simone, C. (2013b). “Drops hollowing the Stone”. Workarounds as resources for better task-artifact fit. In L. Ciolfi, M. A. Grasso, & O. W. Bertelsen (Eds.), ECSCW 2013: Proceedings of the 13th European conference on computer supported cooperative work. 21–25 September 2013, Paphos, Cyprus (pp. 103–122). Berlin: Springer.
Cabitza, F., Simone, C., & Sarini, M. (2009). Leveraging coordinative conventions to promote collaboration awareness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 18(4), 301–330.
Cabitza, F., Corna, S., Gesso, I., & Simone, C. (2011a). WOAD, a platform to deploy flexible EPRs in full control of end-users. In A. Blandford, G. De Pietro, L. Gallo, A. Gimblett, P. Oladimeji, & H. Thimbleby (Eds.), EICS4Med 2011: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on engineering interactive computing systems for medicine and health care, co-located with the ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS 2011) Pisa, Italy, June 13, 2011 (Vol. 727, pp. 7–12). CEUR-WS.org. New York: ACM Press.
Cabitza, F., Gesso, I., & Corna, S. (2011b). Tailorable flexibility: Making end-users autonomous in the design of active interfaces. In K. Blashki (Ed.), MCCSIS 2011: IADIS multi conference on computer science and information systems, Rome, Italy, July 20–26, 2011 (pp. 20–26). IADIS.
Cabitza, F., Gesso, I., & Simone, C. (2012a). Providing end-users with a visual editor to make their electronic documents active. In VL/HCC 2012: Proceedings of short papers of the IEEE symposium on visual languages and human-centric computing, September 30–October 4, 2012, Innsbruck, Austria (pp. 171–174). Innsbruck: IEEE Computer Press. doi:10.​1109/​VLHCC.​2012.​6344509.
Cabitza, F., Simone, C., & Locatelli, M. P. (2012b). Supporting artifact-mediated discourses through a recursive annotation tool. In GROUP’12: Proceedings of the 17th ACM international conference on Supporting group work (pp. 253–262). New York: ACM. doi:10.​1145/​2389176.​2389215.
Cabitza, F., Colombo, G., & Simone, C. (2013). Leveraging underspecification in knowledge artifacts to foster collaborative activities in professional communities. International Journal of Human - Computer Studies, 71(1), 24–45. doi:10.​1016/​j.​ijhcs.​2012.​02.​005.
Cabitza, F., Fogli, D., & Piccinno, A. (2014a). “Each to His Own”: Distinguishing tasks, roles and artifacts in EUD practices. In L. Caporarello, B. Di Martino, & M. Martinez (Eds.), Smart organizations and smart artifacts – Fostering interaction between people, technologies and processes (Vol. 7, pp. 193–206). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Cabitza, F., Fogli, D., & Piccinno, A. (2014b). Fostering participation and co-evolution in sentient multimedia systems. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 25(6), 684–694.
Cadiz, J. J., Gupta, A., & Grudin, J. (2000). Using web annotations for asynchronous collaboration around documents. In CSCW 2000: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 309–318). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.​1145/​358916.​359002.
Campbell-Kelly, M., & Aspray, W. (Eds.). (2004). Computer: A history of the information machine. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1992). Getting around the task-artifact cycle: How to make claims and design by scenario. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 10(2), 181–212. doi:10.​1145/​146802.​146834.
Carroll, J. M., Kellogg, W. A., & Rosson, M. B. (1991). The task-artifact cycle. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. 74–102). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carstensen, P. H., Sorensen, C., & Borstrom, H. (1995). Two is fine, four is a mess: Reducing complexity of articulation work in manufacturing. In COOP’95, proceedings of the international workshop on the design of cooperative systems (pp. 314–333). Sophia Antipolis, FR: INRIA.
Carr, N. G. (2004). Does IT matter?: Information technology and the corrosion of competitive advantage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Ciborra, C. U. (1992). From thinking to tinkering. Information Society, 8, 297–309.
Ciborra, C. (2002). The labyrinths of Information challenging the wisdom of systems. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Ciborra, C. (2006). The mind or the heart? It depends on the (definition of) situation. Journal of Information Technology, 21, 129–139.
Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., & Bb, N. N. (2001). Wild sociology: Ethnography and design. Lancaster: Department of Sociology for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Lancaster University.
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37, 769–789. doi:10.​1017/​S174413741000024​X.
Danholt, P. (2005). Prototypes as performative. In CC’05: Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing, between sense and sensibility (p. 1). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.​1145/​1094562.​1094564.
De Michelis, G., Loregian, M., Moderini, C., Marti, P., Colombo, C., Bannon, L., Storni, C., & Susani, M. (2009a). Designing interaction for next generation personal computing. In T. Gross, J. Gulliksen, P. Kotzé, L. Oestreicher, P. Palanque, R. O. Prates, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Human-computer interaction – INTERACT 2009 (Vol. 5727, pp. 926–927). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
De Michelis, G., Loregian, M., & Moderini, C. (2009b). Itsme: Interaction design innovating workstations. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 22(1), 71–78.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95. doi:10.​1287/​isre.​3.​1.​60.
Derrida, J. (1981). Positions. The University of Chicago Press.
Dirksmeier, P., & Helbrecht, I. (2008). Time, non-representational theory and the ‘Performative Turn’ – Towards a new methodology in qualitative social research. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 9(2), Art. 55.
Dix, A. (2007). Designing for appropriation. In Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group annual conference on people and computers: HCI… but not as we know it (pp. 27–30). Swinton: British Computer Society. Retrieved from dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id = 1531407.1531415
Doerner, C., Draxler, S., Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (2009). End users at the bazaar: Designing next-generation enterprise- resource-planning systems. IEEE Software, 26(5), 45–51.
Dourish, P. (1999). Evolution in the adoption and use of collaborative technologies. In Proceedings of the ECSCW’99 workshop on evolving use of groupware; 1999 September 16; Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dourish, P. (2004). What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(1), 19–30.
Dourish, P., Edwards, W. K., LaMarca, A., Lamping, J., Petersen, K., Salisbury, M., Terry, D. B., & Thornton, J. (2000). Extending document management systems with user-specific active properties. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 18(2), 140–170. doi:10.​1145/​348751.​348758.
Fischer, G., & Giaccardi, E. (2006). Meta-design: A framework for the future of end-user development. In H. Lieberman (Ed.), End user development – Empowering people to flexibly employ advanced information and communication technology (pp. 427–457). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Ye, Y., Sutcliffe, A. G., & Mehandjiev, N. (2004). Meta-design: A manifesto for end-user development. Communications of the ACM, 47(9), 33–37. doi:10.​1145/​1015864.​1015884.
Fitzpatrick, G., & Ellingsen, G. (2012). A review of 25 years of CSCW research in healthcare: Contributions, challenges and future agendas. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). doi:10.1007/s10606-012-9168-0
Flores, F., Graves, M., Hartfield, B., & Winograd, T. (1988). Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 6(2), 153–172. doi:10.​1145/​45941.​45943.
Glendinning, S. (1998). On being with others Heidegger, Derrida, Wittgenstein. London/New York: Routledge.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19, 213–236.
Haigh, T. (2010). Crisis what crisis? Reconsidering the software crisis of the 1960s and the origins of software engineering. Milwaukee: School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin.
Handel, M. J., & Poltrock, S. (2011). Working around official applications: Experiences from a large engineering project. In CSCW’11: Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 309–312). ACM. doi:10.​1145/​1958824.​1958870.
Hanseth, O., & Ciborra, C. (2007). Risk, complexity and ICT. Cheltenham/Northampton: E. Elgar.
Harel, D., & Marelly, R. (2003). Come, let’s play: Scenario-based programming using LSCs and the play-engine. Berlin/New York: Springer.
Harris, J., & Henderson, A. (1999). A better mythology for system design. In CHI’99: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: The CHI is the limit (pp. 88–95). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.​1145/​302979.​303003.
Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M., & Slack, R. (2000). Being there and doing IT in the workplace: A case study of a co-development approach in healthcare. In T. Cherkasky (Ed.), Proceedings of the CPSR/IFIP WG 9.1 participatory design conference (pp. 96–105). New York: ACM Press.
Heeks, R. (2006). Health information systems: Failure, success and improvisation. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 75, 125–137.
Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (1989). Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the ACM, 32(10), 1199–1216. doi:10.​1145/​67933.​67937.
Hollnagel, E., Nemeth, C. P., & Dekker, S. (2008). Resilience engineering perspectives. Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate.
Hug, D. (2010). Performativity in design and evaluation of sounding interactive commodities. In AM’10: Proceedings of the 5th audio mostly conference: A conference on interaction with sound (pp. 1–8). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.​1145/​1859799.​1859806.
Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. New York: Harper & Row.
Illich, I. (1977). Disabling professions. London: Marion Boyars.
Jacucci, C., Jacucci, G., Wagner, I., & Psik, T. (2005). A manifesto for the performative development of ubiquitous media. In CC’05: Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: Between sense and sensibility (pp. 19–28). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.​1145/​1094562.​1094566.
Jensen, T. E. (2002). Performing social work, competence, orderings, spaces and objects (PhD), University of Copenhagen, Department of Psychology.
Jensen, C. B. (2005). An experiment in performative history: The electronic patient record as a future-generating device. Social Studies of Science, 25(2), 241–267.
Jensen, C. B. (2008). CSCW design reconceptualized through science studies. In Cognition, communication and interaction: Transdisciplinary perspectives on interactive technology (pp. 132–148). London: Springer.
Johannessen, L. K., & Ellingsen, G. (2012). Lightweight design methods in integrated practices. Design Issues, 28(3), 22–33.
Johannessen, L. K., Gammon, D., & Ellingsen, G. (2012). Users as designers of information infrastructures and the role of generativity. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(2), 72–91.
Johnson, S. (1759). The history of Rasselas. The Prince of Abyssinia. London: R. and J. Dodsley, W. Johnston.
Kaghan, W. N., & Bowker, G. C. (2001). Out of machine age? Complexity, sociotechnical systems and actor network theory. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18(3–4), 253–269. doi:10.​1016/​S0923-4748(01)00037-6.
Kane, B., Nolan, C., Goyer, D. S., Asbury, M., Cornish, J., & Hardman, G. (2013). The dark knight trilogy: The Batman screenplays. New York: Opus.
Kaplan, B., & Harris-Salamone, K. D. (2009). Health IT success and failure: Recommendations from literature and an AMIA workshop. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 16(3), 291–299. doi:10.​1197/​jamia.​M2997.
Khosravi, K., & Gueheneuc, Y. (2004). A quality model for design patterns. Montreal: Universite de Montreal.
Kling, R., Rosenbaum, H., & Sawyer, S. (2005). Understanding and communicating social Informatics: A framework for studying and teaching the human contexts of information and communication technologies. Medford, NJ.: Information Today, Inc.
Kim, R. M., & Kaplan, S. M. (2006). Interpreting socio-technical co-evolution: Applying complex adaptive systems to IS engagement. Information Technology & People, 19(1), 35–54. doi:10.​1108/​0959384061070080​0.
Krebs, D., Conrad, A., & Wang, J. (2012). Combining visual block programming and graph manipulation for clinical alert rule building. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts(pp. 2453–2458). New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/2212776.2223818
Kriplean, T., Toomin, M., Morgan, J., Borming, A., & Ko, A. J. (2012). Is this what you meant? Promoting listening on the web with reflect. In CHI 2012: Proceedings of the international conference on human computer interaction, May 5–10, 2012, Austin, Texas, USA(pp. 1559–1568). New York: ACM Press.
Kyng, M., & Mathiassen, L. (1997). Computers and design in context. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lanzara, G. F. (1999). Between transient constructs and persistent structures: Designing systems in action. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 8, 331–349.
Latouche, S. (2004). La megamachine: raison technoscientifique, raison economique et mythe du progres : essais a la memoire de Jacques Ellul. Paris: La Decouverte: M.A.U.S.S.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind (La pensee suavage). London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Lieberman, H., Paternò, F., Klann, M., & Wulf, V. (2006). End-user development: An emerging paradigm. In End user development (Vol. 9, pp. 1–8). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Liu, K. (2000). Semiotics in information systems engineering. Cambridge University Press.
Locatelli, M. P., & Simone, C. (2010). A community based metaphor supporting EUD within communities. In G. Santucci (Ed.), Proceedings of the international conference on advanced visual interfaces, AVI 2010, Roma, Italy, May 26–28, 2010 (p. 406). New York: ACM Press.
Love, T. (2007). Social, environmental and ethical factors in engineering design theory: A post-positivist approach. Western Australia: Praxis Education.
Luff, P., Heath, C., & Greatbatch, D. (1992). Tasks-in-interaction: Paper and screen based documentation in collaborative activity. In CSCW’92: Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 163–170). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.​1145/​143457.​143475.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1986). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Maguire, S., & McKelvey, B. (1999). Complexity and management: Moving from fad to firm foundations. Emergence, 1, 19–61.
Mahadev, V., Seng, N. T., & Woo, L. G. (1976). T3 toxicosis–a case report. The Medical Journal of Malaysia, 30(4), 328–330.
Mamlin, B. W., Biondich, P. G., Wolfe, B. A., Fraser, H., Jazayeri, D., Allen, C., Miranda, J., Tierney, W. M. (2006). Cooking up an open source EMR for developing countries: OpenMRS - A recipe for successful collaboration. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 2006, 529. Managing the human side of information technology: Challenges and solutions. (2002). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Pub.
Mansfield, J. (2010). The nature of change or the law of unintended consequences. London: Imperial College Press.
Mark, G. (2002). Conventions and commitments in distributed CSCW Groups. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11(3), 349–387.MathSciNet
Mark, G., & Semaan, B. (2008). Resilience in collaboration. In CSCW’08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 137–146). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.​1145/​1460563.​1460585.
Mark, G., Gonzalez, V. M., Sarini, M., & Simone, C. (2002). Reconciling different perspectives: An experiment on technology support for articulation. In COOP’02: Proceedings of the international conference on the design of cooperative systems. Saint Raphael (FR), 4–7 June (pp. 23–37). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Martin, D., & Sommerville, I. (2004). Patterns of cooperative interaction: Linking ethnomethodology and design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 11(1), 59–89. doi:10.​1145/​972648.​972651.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1992). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala Publications.
McLeod, L., & Doolin, B. (2010). Documents as mediating artifacts in contemporary IS development. In 2010 43rd Hawaii international conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 1–10). doi:10.​1109/​HICSS.​2010.​155
Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894–904.
Miller, D. L. (1996). The bricoleur in the tennis court: Pedagogy in postmodern context. In Proceedings of the conference on values in higher education. Retrieved from web.utk.edu/~unistudy/ethics96/dlm1.html
Miller, R. G. (1995). Improving community service: Strategic cooperation through communication. Communicating Organizational Change: A Management Perspective, 65.
Mørch, A. I., Stevens, G., Won, M., Klann, M., Dittrich, Y., & Wulf, V. (2004). Component-based technologies for end-user development. Communications of the ACM, 47(9), 59–62.
Morrison, C., & Blackwell, A. (2009). Observing end-user customisation of electronic patient records. In V. Pipek, M. Rosson, B. de Ruyter, & V. Wulf (Eds.), IS-EUD’09: Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on end-user development (Vol. 5435, pp. 275–284). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.​1007/​978-3-642-00427-8_​16.
Morrison, A., Westvang, E., & Skogsrud, S. S. (2010). Whisperings in the undergrowth: Communication design, online social networking and discursive performativity. In I. Wagner, T. Bratteteig, & D. Stuedahl (Eds.), Exploring digital design: Multi-disciplinary design practices (pp. 221–259). London: Springer.
Morrison, C., Fitzpatrick, G., & Blackwell, A. (2011). Multi-disciplinary collaboration during ward rounds: Embodied aspects of electronic medical record usage. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80(8), e96–e111.
Nandhakumar, J., & Avison, D. E. (1999). The fiction of methodological development: A field study of information systems development. Information Technology & People, 12(2), 176–191. doi:10.​1108/​0959384991026722​4.
Nemeth, C. (2003). The master schedule how cognitive artifacts affect distributed cognition in acute care. Cognitive Technologies Laboratory.
Niazkhani, Z., Pirnejad, H., van der Sijs, H., & Aarts, J. (2011). Evaluating the medication process in the context of CPOE use: The significance of working around the system. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80(7), 490–506.
Norman, D., & Kuras, M. (2004). Engineering complex systems. The MITRE Corporation.
O’Neill, J. E. (1992). The evolution of interactive computing through time-sharing and networking. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, USA.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992a). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427. doi:10.​1287/​orsc.​3.​3.​398.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992b). Learning from notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation. In CSCW’92: Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 362–369). New York: ACM. doi:10.​1145/​143457.​143549.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92. doi:10.​1287/​isre.​7.​1.​63.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2006). Material knowing: The scaffolding of human knowledgeability. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(5), 460–466.
Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (2005). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
Papazoglou, M. P., Traverso, P., Dustdar, S., & Leymann, F. (2007). Service-oriented computing: State of the art and research challenges. Computer, 40, 38–45.
Pavard, B., & Dugdale, J. (2006). The contribution of complexity theory to the study of socio-technical cooperative systems. In A. A. Minai & Y. Bar-Yam (Eds.), Unifying themes in complex systems (pp. 39–48). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pesic, M., Schonenberg, M. H., Sidorova, N., & Van Der Aalst, W. M. P. (2007). Constraint-based workflow models: Change made easy. In OTM’07: Proceedings of the 2007 OTM Confederated international conference on On the move to meaningful internet systems: CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA, and IS - Volume Part I (pp. 77–94). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Peters, I. (2006). Against folksonomies - Indexing blogs and podcasts for corporate knowledge management. In Proceedings of online information, London, UK (pp. 93–97). London: Learned Information Europe.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. University of Chicago Press.
Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (2009). Infrastructuring: Toward an integrated perspective on the design and use of information technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(5), 1.
Pohn, K. (2007). Cosmicplay.net (PhD). Depth Psychology Department, Pacifica Graduate Institute, Carpinteria, California, USA. Retrieved from www.​cosmicplay.​net/​
Poltrock, S., & Handel, M. (2009). Modeling collaborative behavior: Foundations for collaboration technologies. In Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences.
Robey, D., & Markus, M. L. (1984). Rituals in information system design. MIS Quarterly, 8(1), 5–15.
Robinson, M. (1993). Design for unanticipated use. In Third European conference on computer- supported cooperative work (pp. 187–202). Milano: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Robinson, M., & Bannon, L. (1991). Questioning representations. In ECSCW’91: Proceedings of the second European conference on computer-supported cooperative work. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rochlin, G. (1998). Trapped in the net: The unanticipated consequences of computerization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rolland, K. H., & Monteiro, E. (2002). Balancing the local and the global in infrastructural information systems. The Information Society, 18(2), 87–100. doi:10.​1080/​0197224029007502​0.
Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezzalla-Grandlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 59–69.
Schmidt, K. (2011a). Cooperative work and coordinative practices: Contributions to the conceptual foundations of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). New York: Springer.
Schmidt, K. (2011b). Dispelling the mythology of computational artifacts. In Cooperative work and coordinative practices contributions to the conceptual foundations of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (pp. 391–413). Berlin: Springer.
Schmidt, K., & Wagner, I. (2004). Ordering systems: Coordinative practices and artifacts in architectural design and planning. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 13(5–6), 349–408. doi:10.​1007/​s10606-004-5059-3.
Schneberger, S. L., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The complexity cross: Implications for practice. Communications of the ACM, 46(9), 216–225.
Shapiro, D. (2005). Participatory design: The will to succeed. In CC’05: Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on critical computing: Between sense and sensibility (pp. 29–38). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.​1145/​1094562.​1094567.
Shipman, F. M., & Marshall, C. C. (1999). Formality considered harmful: Experiences, emerging themes, and directions on the use of formal representations in interactive systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(4), 333–352.
Simon, H. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Simon, J. (2010). Knowing together: A social epistemology for socio-technical epistemic systems (PhD). Universitat Wien.
Simone, C., & Sarini, M. (2001). Adaptability of classification schemes in cooperation: What does it mean? In ECSCW’01: Proceedings of European conference on computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 19–38). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Simone, C., & Schmidt, K. (1993). Computational mechanisms of interaction for CSCW, COMIC deliverable D3.1, Esprit basic research project, Lancaster, U.K.
Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. C. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. London: MIT Press.
Star, S. L., & Strauss, A. (1999). Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 9–30.
Stevens, G. (2010). Understanding and designing appropriation infrastructures: Artifacts as boundary objects in the continuous software development. University of Siegen.
Stevens, G., Quaisser, G., & Klann, M. (2006). Breaking it up: An industrial case study of component-based tailorable software design. In H. Lieberman, F. Paternò, & V. Wulf (Eds.), End user development (Vol. 9, pp. 269–294). Springer: Dordrecht. Retrieved from dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​1-4020-5386-X_​13
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suchman, L. (1994). Do categories have politics? Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 2(3), 177–190.
Suchman, L. (2006). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sumner, T., & Stolze, M. (1997). Evolution, not revolution: Participatory Design in the Toolbelt Era. In M. Kyng & L. Mathiassen (Eds.), Computers and design in context (pp. 1–26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Szewczak, E., & Snodgress, C. (Eds.). (2002). Managing the human side of information technology: Challenges and solutions. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Telier, A. (2011). Design things (K. Friedman & E. Stolterman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Thayer, L. (2012). Investing in the Bricoleur. In Making high performance organizations: The logic of virtuosity (in press).
Truex, D. P., Baskerville, R., & Klein, H. K. (1999). Growing systems in emergent organizations. Communications of ACM, 42(8), 117–123.
Van der Aalst, W. M. P., Pesic, M., & Schonenberg, H. M. (2009). Declarative workflows: Balancing between flexibility and support. Computer Science - Research and Development, 23(2), 99–113. doi:10.​1007/​s00450-009-0057-9.
Vera, A. H., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Situated action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science, 17, 7–48.
Wagner, I., Stuedahl, D., & Bratteteig, T. (2010). Exploring digital design: Multi-disciplinary design practices. London: Springer-Verlag London Limited. Retrieved from dx.doi.org/10.​1007/​978-1-84996-223-0
Warkentin, M., Moore, R. S., Bekkering, E., & Johnston, A. C. (2009). Analysis of systems development project risks: An integrative framework. ACM SIGMIS Database, 40(2), 8. doi:10.​1145/​1531817.​1531821.
Weick, K. E. (1993). Organizational redesign as improvisation. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for improving performance (pp. 346–379). New York: Oxford University Press.
Weinstein, D., & Weinstein, M. (1991). Georg Simmel: Sociological flaneur bricoleur. Theory, Culture Society, 8, 151–168.
Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Reading: Addison Wesley.
Winthereik, B. R., & Vikkelso, S. (2005). ICT and integrated care: Some dilemmas of standardising inter-organisational communication. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 14(1), 43–67.
Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Cambridge: Dover Publications.
Wulf, V., Pipek, V., & Won, M. (2008). Component-based tailorability: Enabling highly flexible software applications. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(1), 1–22. doi:10.​1016/​j.​ijhcs.​2007.​08.​007.
Metadata
Title
Building Socially Embedded Technologies: Implications About Design
Authors
Federico Cabitza
Carla Simone
Copyright Year
2015
Publisher
Springer London
Book
Designing Socially Embedded Technologies in the Real-World

Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-6719-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-1-4471-6720-4

Copyright Year: 2015

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6720-4_11

Premium Partner

    Image Credits