skip to main content
10.1145/500286.500297acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgroupConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Process descriptions as organisational accounting devices: the dual use of workflow technologies

Published:30 September 2001Publication History

ABSTRACT

Workflow technologies present a problem for CSCW. On the one hand, they are perhaps the most successful form of groupware technology in current use; but on the other, they have been subject to sustained and cogent critiques, particularly from perspective of the analysis of everyday working activities. This leads inevitably to the question: in the face of these critiques, just why and how do work-flow technologies prove effective? This paper suggests that part of the solution lies in the fact that workflow technologies play more than one role in organisations, and that, in fact, the success of work flow technologies may have little to do with the typical relationship of those technologies to the accomplishment of everyday work. On the basis of the notion of a dual role for workflow technologies, I lay out a framework for considering the design and analysis of workflow systems that may help to bridge between these two roles.

References

  1. 1.Agostini, A., De Michelis, G., and Grasso, A. (1997). Rethinking CSCW Systems: The Architecture of Milano. Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW'97 (Lancaster, UK). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 2.Ball, T. and Eick, S. (1996). Software Visualization in the Large. IEEE Computer, 29(4), 33-43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 3.Bentley, R. and Dourish, P. (1995). Medium versus Mechanism: Supporting Collaboration through Customisation. Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW'95 (Stockholm, Sweden). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 4.Bittner, E. (1965). The Concept of Organisation. Social Research, 32, 239-55 (reproduced in Turner, ed, Ethnomethodology. Harmondsworth: Penguin).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.Bowers, J., Button, G. and Sharrock, W. (1995), Workflow from Within and Without: Technology and Cooperative Work on the Print Industry Shopfloor. Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW'95 (Stockholm, Sweden). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6.Button, G. (1995). What's Wrong with Speech Act Theory. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work,3,39-42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. 7.Button, G. and Harper, R. (1993). Taking the organisation into accounts. In Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology. London: Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.Dourish, P., Holmes, J., MacLean, A., Marqvardsen, P., and Zbylsaw, A., (1996). Freeflow: Mediating between Representation and Action in Workflow Systems. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW'96 (Boston, MA). New York: ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 9.Dourish, P., Bentley, R., Jones, R. and MacLean, A. (1999). A Matter of Perspective: Using Process Descriptions to Index Document History. Proc. ACM Conf. Supporting Group Work GROUP'99 (Phoenix,AZ).NewYork:ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 10.Dourish, P., Edwards, K., LaMarca, A., Lamping, J., Petersen, K.,Salisbury,M.,Terry,D.andThornton,J.(2000).Extending Document Management Systems with Active Properties. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 18(2), 140-170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. 11.Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology.New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.Garfinkel, H. and Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Action. In McKinney and Tiryakian (eds), Theoretical Sociology, 337-366. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.Grinter, R. (1996). Supporting Articulation Work Using Configuration Management Systems. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 5(4), 447-465. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. 14.Grinter, R. (2000). Workflow Systems: Occasions for Success and Failure. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 9(2), 189-214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 15.Haake, J. and Wilson, B. (1992). Supporting Collaborative Writing of Hyperdocuments in SEPIA. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW'92 (Toronto, Ontario). New York: ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. 16.Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1994). Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution.NewYork: HarperCollins.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.LaMarca, A., Edwards, K., Dourish, P., Lamping, J., Smith, I. and Thornton, J. (1999). Taking the Work out of Workflow: Mechanisms for Document-Centered Collaboration. Proc. European Conf. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW'99 (Copenhagen, Denmark). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 18.Medina-Mora, R., Winograd, T., Flores, R., and Flores, F. (1992). The Action Workflow Approach to Workflow Management. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW'92 (Toronto, Ontario). New York: ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. 19.Randall, D., Rouncefield, M., and Hughes, J. (1995). Chalk and Cheese: BPR and Ethnomethodologically-Informed Ethnography in CSCW. Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW'95 (Stockholm, Sweden). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. 20.Robertson, G., Card, S. and Mackinlay, J. (1993). Information Visualization using 3D Interactive Animation. Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 56-71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 21.Schmidt, K. (1997). Of Maps and Scripts: The Status of Formal Constructs in Cooperative Work. Proc. ACM Conf. Supporting Group Work GROUP'97 (Phoenix, AZ). New York: ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 22.Star, S. L. (1989). The Structure of Ill-Structured Problems: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Problem Solving. In Gasser and Huhns (eds), Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Volume 2. London: Pitman. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. 23.Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.Swenson, K., Maxwell, R., Matsumoto, T., Saghari, B. and Irwin, K. (1994). A Business Process Environment Supporting Collaborative Planning. Collaborative Computing, 1(1), 15-34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.Suchman, L. (1985). Office Procedures as Practical Action: Models of Work and System Design. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 1(4), 320-328. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. 26.Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. 27.Suchman, L. (1993). Technologies of Accountability: Of Lizards and Aeroplanes. In Button (ed), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology. London: Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.Suchman, L. (1994). Do Categories Have Politics? The Language/Action Perspective Reconsidered. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 2(3). 177-190.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. 29.Suchman, L. (1995). Speech Acts and Voices: Response to Winograd et al. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work,3,85-95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. 30.Winograd, T. (1986). A Language/Action Perspective on the Design of Cooperative Work. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW'86 (Austin, TX). New York: ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 31.Winograd, T. (1994). Categories, Disciplines and Social Coordination. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2, 191- 197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. 32.Winograd, T. and Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Process descriptions as organisational accounting devices: the dual use of workflow technologies

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          GROUP '01: Proceedings of the 2001 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work
          September 2001
          310 pages
          ISBN:1581132948
          DOI:10.1145/500286

          Copyright © 2001 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 30 September 2001

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • Article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate125of405submissions,31%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader