Workplace studies

- Why and how

- Examples

Why workplace studies?

• workplace studies play a prominent role in CSCW• the orderliness of cooperative work cannot be

taken for granted• understand how the orderliness is accomplished in

cooperative work• “it is the very practices through which such

orderliness is accomplished that must be supported” (Schmidt 1998)

Why workplace studies?

• workplace studies with strongest influence on CSCW research, those not aiming at specific design decisions, but rather, in detail describing the ways in which social order is produced in cooperative settings

• London underground – the interplay of individual and cooperative activities, and the role of awareness

Why workplace studies?

• seldom specific design recommendations – absence of appropriate computing environments, gap between results from workplace studies and systems requirements

• can inform development of CSCW-technology – awareness models etc

How to do workplace studies

• etnographic methods– observation– interviews– collecting material

• describe people’s behaviours in a workplace

• don’t select what to study

Examples of workplace studies

• control room studies– air traffic control– underground control– ambulance control

• office studies– the MSC study (McDonald & Ackerman)– the LTC study (Fitzpatrick)– the CompC study (Groth & Bowers)

Air traffic control

• responsibilty of the ATC system and controllers – to prevent aircraft flying through the same airspace from colliding

• the work of controllers is facilitated by radars, computer-processed flight progress data, control suites, and so on

• aircrafts are expected to follow certain “rules of the road”

Air traffic control

• strips– represents movements into different

responsibility sectors– central in controllers’ work– embodies its control history– do not determine sequence of action– collaborative activity

Air traffic control

• coordination between sectors and scheduling– the strips gives an overview of the status– aircrafts are continously moving

• handing over control activities

Air traffic control

• not individual but social“the actualities of the working division of labour are such that all members of the team attend to the information and the tasks and activities it supports in distinctive but closely related ways”

Air traffic control

• “we are starting from the position that air traffic control is a subtle cooperative activity and we believe we must understand the nature of that cooperation in order to build effective computer support” (Bentley et. al. 1992)

• ethnographers and software engineers working side by side

• understanding each others work

Background

• knowledge vs information vs data

• organisational memory and common information spaces

• references to others

• knowledge systems vs awareness systems

The MSC study

• MSC– build, sells and supports medical and dental

practice management software– medium sized company with ~100 employees– technical development, technical support and

technical communications– problems often related to new features

The MSC study

• A typical problem at MSC:A client had payed for a new feature which worked for a couple of weeks and then suddenly stopped working. Documentation was checked and found to describe two different behaviours for this section of code, but did not include the feature. The appropriated developer was asked who verified the suggested solution and pointed out that the feature was not part of the standard version and had, therefore, not been documented.

The MSC study –behaviors

• expertise identification– difficult to articulate knowledge– you learn what others know– using artefacts– using “experise concierges”

The MSC study –behaviors

• expertise selection– keep it local, cross departmental boundaries,

ask an expert– don’t interrupt a busy person, don’t ask the

same person– ask persons with good communication skills

• escalation• the ER-system

The S&P study

• small in terms of numbers, large complex and politically charged environment

• a period of bootstrapping – identifying and locating the shared expertise

The S&P study –identified behaviours

• finding out in the large• finding out in the small

– finding out accidentally– finding out by snooping– finding out incidentally

• finding out what people do now– finding out whithin and across teams– finding out through information brokers

• finding out what people are like

The CompC study

• CompC – a consultancy firm, ~100 employees, part of a large organization

• technical development – software, hardware and mechatronics

• two major incidents – reorganization after incorporating a smaller company, four out of eight managers left the organisation

• ethnographic methods

The CompC study –results

• the practical use of documentation– what is documented and what is not– on-line overviews and searching– troubleshooting documents and situated searching

• finding things out as a practical matter– helping others beyond reciprocity– non-local help given freely– knowing the suppliers– managers– local questions

The CompC study –results

• existing information systems

• learning on the job– training– competence groups

The CompC study –results

• no specific design conclusions but informative results

• situatedness and accomplishing orderliness

• designing organisational knowedge systems– light weight technology, – focus on awareness of others availability and

activities rather than specific knowledge systems