The Unbearable Lightness of Grouping: Problems of ... - CiteSeerX

NOKOBIT-98

Sesjon 2:2b

The Unbearable Lightness of Grouping: Problems of introducing computer support for cooperative work Tone Bratteteig Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

ABSTRACT Introduction of computer support for cooperative work (CSCW) is often reported as failures, and a number of studies have aimed to explain the mistakes. Many refer to lack of understanding the technological possibilities due to bad information and training. This article aims to discuss “failures of CSCW use” by other characteristics than lack of training or badly planned introduction processes by referring to the mutual interaction between technology and organisation. The discussion is based on findings from a series of studies of use and development of Lotus Notes applications in Norwegian organisations. The article tries to argue that some aspects of CSCW are inherent in the way that the technology is used because of its technological possibilities, and that these can be expected to be present in any organisation. These aspects are discussed as contradictions: individual/collective, (collective) tool/(individual) work task, management/performance, and tradition/development. On the basis of the contradictions, three problems that have to do with the process of mutual interaction or adjustment between technology and organisation are discussed: Defining the collective, The individual becomes more important, and The process of “grouping”. The process of transforming individually oriented work to cooperative work that fits the technology is hard and contradictory, even if it seems to be easy and nice to start cooperating and sharing with each other.

INTRODUCTION Computer support for cooperative work (CSCW) refers to a variety of technical artefactsgroupware products and environments as well as traditional software utilised in cooperative work (eg, Ellis et al. 91; Schmidt & Bannon 92; Grudin 94b). Groupware or CSCW products is particularly built to support some aspects of cooperative work, and the introduction of CSCW can be seen as a way for the organisation to strengthen these aspects. The emphasis on cooperation is a part of a general change in work life where flattening of organisational hierarchies and low level autonomy is encouraged to meet requirements for increased flexibility with respect to environmental changes (Gustavsen 92). Team work and sharing of information is necessary for professional decision making at all organisational levels. Modern organisations continuously redesign to fit and compete in the networked societya mix of latest fashion and a conscious reply to environmental claims. Within this setting CSCW is both creating and filling a need for automating parts of the work introduced by cooperative work arrangements. The topic discussed in this article is the mutual interaction between the technology and the organisation when new technology is introduced. A common view has been that technology has particular effects or consequences on its surroundingsat its worst a rather naïve technology deterministic view. Technology is not neutral; it is shaped by the situations of design and use and the interaction between use and design (cf, eg, Pinch & Bijker 87; Hanseth 96). Introduction of technology to an organisation often aims to encourage or make manifest a particular work organisation or set of work styles (ie, having particular effects), but empirical studies report that new systems surprisingly often are used differently and in accordance with current work practice. Studies of CSCW use explain both success and failure (ie, failing to utilise the cooperation support potential) with organisational or individual characteristics (Orlikowski 92a) emphasising

99

Sesjon 2:2b the importance of introducing the new technology in a proper way and providing the right training. This article aims to discuss “failures of CSCW use” by other characteristics than lack of training or badly planned introduction processes by referring to the mutual interaction between technology and organisation. The discussion is based on findings from a series of studies of use and development of Lotus Notes applications in Norwegian organisations. Lotus Notes was chosen as an example of CSCW because it is well known and has been used by a variety of organisations for some years (Ellis et al. 91; Bannon 93; Essler 98). Lotus Notes is a client-server environment for development and use of CSCW applications aimed to support communication, cooperation and coordination of work tasks through sharing of information. It is a development environment as well as an environment for usage: in this way it is a “semi-manufactured” but usable product, which is flexible and tailorable in the use organisation. Notes offers a homogenous environment for a variety of underlying functionality, mainly applications for distributing and tracing information (like discussion databases and work flow systems). It includes a document editor, links for attaching documents, text search, electronic mail with distribution lists, and macros to add functionality or integrate with other applications. Lotus Notes is characterised by two features: i) replication, ie, the possibility to simultaneously work on the same document from different geographical locations, where the replication mechanisms synchronise all changes to the document, and ii) that the “document database” includes both structured and unstructured information. A document is defined by a form containing a number of fields, and the users define their own “information views” through a selection of fields. I start with a brief description of the empirical basis; the first section includes a description of the research approach, the next section briefly summarises the main findings. The following sections present important aspects of the analysis, the difficult aspects of Defining the collective, the paradox that The individual becomes more important, and the difficult transition involved in The process of “grouping”. The article concludes with a brief discussion of how these CSCW topics challenge system development.

EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF CSCW PRACTICE The empirical basis for this article is a series of 16 case studies of Lotus Notes applications used in 12 different Norwegian organisations. The case studies have been carried out during a four year period by students and researchers at the Department of Informatics, University of Oslo. Most of the studies have been carried out by students connected to the research programme SUPPORT1. The first nine case studies were carried out by student groups as part of the course Computers and Society at the Department of Informatics, University of Oslo (autumn 1994, the cases are summarised in (Bratteteig 96)). Each student group studied one organisation and its usage of Lotus Notes (table 1 gives an overview of the organisations). Eight out of nine organisations were found in cooperation with a value added reseller of Lotus Notes in Norway (Cinet). Their contact person in the organisation was asked to participate in the study and find additional informants as well. An interview guide was made in order to make a basis for comparison. The organisations received a description of the study (objectives and plan) and the interview guide before the interviews. The guide concentrated on four hypotheses suggested by Notes material:

1

Software Use: Patterns and Practices in Organisational Transition. The SUPPORT programme aims to collect a set of instances of use of CSCW applications in “ordinary” organisations, and to offer an opportunity to discover patterns of use in those organisations that can help explain CSCW success and failure.

100

NOKOBIT-98 that Lotus Notes 1) supports cooperative work2, 2) integrates applications and platforms, 3) is easy to adapt and tailor to local needs, and 4) is used independently of organisational boundaries or knowledge differences. The student groups used the guide freely; some followed the guide closely, others conducted open interviews. All groups made additional observations. The case studies were documented in reports that analysed and attempted to describe and explain how the organisations utilised Lotus Notes as a CSCW technology. In addition, I have had access to transcripts and minutes from interviews and observations. The remaining seven case studies include six case studies that make the empirical basis for six Master theses and a small research project involving a PhD student. Two studies follow up one of the nine cases reported above: C (Næss 96) and F (Beck & Smørdal 97). Two studies focus on training issues in their case studies: J (Ulla 97) and K (Hilde 97). The last three studies focus on different aspects of design and use of the same Lotus Notes applications in L (Sefland 98; Dreiem 98; Kværne-Nielsen 98). These studies are based on open interviews and observations, and their discussions are based on theories concerned with i) user participation is system development, ii) cooperative work (Strauss 93; Gasser 86), or iii) social change (Giddens 84; Orlikowski 92b; Karsten 96; Walsham 93), respectively. My analysis is based on reports from the 16 case studies, ie, their analyses of the data, as well as additional studies of parts of the collected data. The basic instrument for the overall analysis has been the Soft Dialectics approach3. In addition I make use of data from a number of other recent studies of Lotus Notes applications (Orlikowski 92a; 92b; Karsten 96; Ciborra 96b) as well as studies of other CSCW applications (Star & Ruhleder 94; Grinter 97; Carstensen & Sørensen 96; Bowers et al. 95; Bullen & Bennet 96; Berg 97) and introduction of CSCW (Tyre & Orlikowski 94; Bardram 97; Hepsøe; Essler 98).

2

Bratteteig (94; 96) defines cooperative work in a CSCW context as including i) communication (medium), ii) collaborative work tasks (shared tool, tool for handling common work material, tool for making group decisions), iii) coordination (of collaborative work, managerial coordination tasks, work flow management), and iv) information networking (arranging for unanticipated use, infrastructure, “publishing” or presenting information for an audience ). Bratteteig (94; 96) discusses the hypotheses in more detail.

3

Soft Dialectics (Bratteteig & Øgrim 94) is a rapid technique aimed at identifying perspectives that can explain how and why a person or group act the way they do. Soft Dialectics combines the first step of Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland & Scholes 91) with dialectic analysis (cf. Øgrim 93). On the basis of quotes from informants concerning their view on some problem, problem areas are defined and expressed as contradicting relationships and interdependencies. The contradictions I identified are discussed in the next section.

101

Sesjon 2:2b

category of organisation

project based organisasions

project-orient .w ork styles

decentralised organisations

abbr. type of organisation

rough description of main Notes usage

additional contradiction

A

independent research org.

replacem ent of paper-based com m .

m anagem ent/ perform ance

B

research institute

autom atising adm . work

indidvidual/ group

C

trade union

case archive

indiv. / group

D

publisher

case archive

tradition/developm

E

newspaper

indiv. / group

F

police dept.

coordination of work project support

G

public office

fax m achine

m anagem / perform

H

engineering organisation

distribution of work tasks

tradition/developm

I

com puter org.

support for interdept. coop.& m gm t. control

m anagem / perform

J

com m unication technology org.

project archive

tradition/developm

K

cooperative of production units

support for sales

m anagem / perform

L

international industrial org.

report archive, support for m gm t.

m anagem / perform

.

.

tradition/developm .

Table 1. Overview of the 12 organisations

The rest of the article discusses a particular set of findings from the case studies, emphasising the mutual interaction between the technology and the organisation. The cases are interesting as they illustrate the diversity of a set of general use problems (contradictions) concerned with Lotus Notes and CSCW, but “‘what groupware is’ can only be ascertained in situ, when the matching between plasticity of the artefact and the multiform practices of the actors involved takes place. To be sure, such a matching is open, situated and continuously unfolding.” (Ciborra 96a: p. 9, original emphasis)

THE PRACTICE OF USING LOTUS NOTES The 12 different Lotus Notes applications are examples of CSCW that embrace a variety of use practices relating differently to the technological potential of Notes. Patterns emerging from this variety can point to characteristics of system development and useor the organisationthat can explain differences in how the technology is utilised. The following subsections discuss the main use patterns (cf. table 1).

Lotus Notes supports some aspects of cooperative work but only some. In all the organisations, Lotus Notes replaces existing technology andby being different from the previous technologyenhances the communication: Notes applications ease communication (eg, use of fax) or expand communication forms (e-mail vs. telephone and paper mail). Notes is used to make information more easily available by replacing physical bulletin boards, circular letters, hand books, or public bills. The product makes a basis for supporting cooperative work tasks by providing an information infrastructure. But this potential is only used when cooperative work routines exist before Notes is introduced. Only in cases where collaborative work is already established, Notes is used to share work material. Two organisations (Newspaper (E), Engineering Org. (H)) use Notes applications to support work processes that involve collaborative tasks, ie, to coordinate the production process

102

NOKOBIT-98 with respect to the distribution of work. Unlike the promises from CSCW literature, documents are shared and reused mainly by the original authors (also in Newspaper (E)). Only two organisations (Police Dept. (F), Computer Org. (I)) utilise large parts of the CSCW potential in Notes by integrating several applications to make an infrastructure for projects and interdepartmental work processes. Notes is used by employees as well as management, and in several of the organisations the same documents are used for different purposes, in different ways, by different people (Computer Org. (I), Int. Industrial Org. (L)). However, the fact that the same work material and tools are used for both work and management are often not transparent. Levels of access (and in particular access to information about other peoples' work) mirror current levels of power. Making internal work documents available for management creates an uncertainty about the way that these documents are used. The distribution of costs and benefits are uneven in some of the organisations: the beneficiaries do not always pay the costs (Independent Research Org. (A); cf, Grudin 89; 94a).

Introduction of Notes is not planned as system development In most of the organisations purchase of Notes is initiated by an enthusiast, often at middle management level. This person also decides the introduction and adaptation to the particular needs of the organisation. The exceptions are when the decision to use groupware is a top management decision (Int. Industrial Org. (L)), and when the introduction model fits traditional system development methods starting with a pilot team testing the Notes application before introducing it to all staff members (Police Dept. (F)). This seems to have worked very well. The usual introduction model is stepwise both with respect to who gets Notes installed, and which applications to use. Notes seems not easy to adopt or tailor to local needs, and the computing knowledge possessed by the users decides the extent to which tailoring is carried out. In most of the cases, tailoring involves external (with respect to the use community) computer professionals: the Notes manufacturer, computing consultants, or other computing staff. Very little integration of applications or platforms has been carried out, mainly because most organisations have homogenous machinery. In the heterogeneous environments investigated, attempts to integrate fail surprisingly often, and introduction of Notes is accompanied by technical errors and breakdowns. The integration problems also hold for Lotus software, eg, integration of Lotus Ami Pro with Lotus Notes has proven difficult. The integration activity varies a lot depending on the technical knowledge possessed by the use organisation. In ten out of twelve organisations little or no user training was given; voluntary half-day courses at the vendor was the most common offer. Notes is clearly not self-instructing, and a stepwise introduction combined with little or no training seems to imply that the potential of Notes as a CSCW product is not utilised (confirms eg, Orlikowski 92a) unless the employees are forced to use Notes in particular ways. Only two examples of this strategy was found: Computer Org. (I) and the Int. Industrial Org. (L) made their Notes applications mandatory. In the Computer Org. (I) the result was full utilisation of Notes as a CSCW technology—apparently a "success story", in the Int. Industrial Org. (L) only the necessary reports were entered into the system. Only the Police Dept. (F) seems to have given thorough training to all. As mentioned above, this organisation used a traditional system development method, and training was a part of this approach. This seems to have worked very well.

CONTRADICTIONS CHARACTERISING LOTUS NOTES USE In analysing the cases I concentrate on the reported problems, and try to explain why a problem is experienced as a problem and by whomalso identifying who will not consider this a

103

Sesjon 2:2b problem4. The analysis has resulted in four contradictions that express the rationale for actions and structures involved when Notes is used and not used. The contradictions all involve characteristics that are basic to CSCW technology. A discussion with the users about the problems is supported by the contradictions as they make a non-personalised basis for discussing more or less sensitive problems concerned with “failure” and “success” of a system. The following is a brief summary of the main contradictions that characterise the 12 organisations (cf. table 1). 1. The contradiction between the individual and the collective is crucial to CSCW: the same system is used by both individuals and collectives, the work is carried out by individuals (the costs (Grudin 94a)) while the benefits are aimed also at collective levels. Benefits of the Notes application depends, however, on all individuals to contribute as responsible members of the collectiveuse of the Notes application changes the interdependencies between the members of the collective and makes the individuals more important. Problems experienced by an individual user with respect to a Notes application turns out to be a group problem as the group depends on all members to contribute to the CSCW application (Trade Union (C)). 2. All the 12 cases include users that experience problems with a Notes application as their work toolthey have to use it but it does not fit very well with their work tasks or they do not know the system sufficiently to utilise it as a personal tool. The contradiction between the work tasks and the tool is unavoidable when computers are used in work: a perfect fit between the computer system and the work tasks is difficult or impossible to achieve (Gasser 86). A computer system used by more than one person, may be subject to contradictory or difficult-to-meet requirements. When CSCW technology is concerned, the contradiction between the work tasks and the tool is more difficult because the benefit of CSCW applications depends on a critical mass of users (Grudin 94a; Markus 90): the CSCW application is therefore (more or less) mandatory to the collective. The collective tool may be used by a variety of individual users, for different purposes, and the fit and misfit with respect to work may vary from user to user. The individual freedom to tailor the application is therefore less in CSCW systems than in single-user systems. Examples that the collective tool was not the best individual tool for particular work tasks were found in all 16 cases. 3. The contradiction between management and performance is based on the experience that the same applications and documents are used for different purposes: as part of a work task and as a part of managing the same work task. The two ways of using the tool are not always transparent (visible or controllable), and this may create a feeling of uncertainty and loss of autonomy for some users. The openness and flexibility advocated by CSCW makes this contradiction more present. The relation between management and performance is important because Notes enhances the possibilities for individual controlthe balance between coaching and surveillance depends on culture. CSCW opens for new managerial forms (Perin 91). Notes gives a potential for individualising work (Computer Org. (I), Int. Industrial Org. (L)). The contradiction is also visible when the organisation uses Notes as a tool for organisational de/centralisation. The Computer Org. (I) uses Notes to support all kinds of cooperative work, including de/centralising work tasks among headquarters and regional offices, cross-departmental work processes like sales, and for all internal project support. Both in the Computer Org. (I) and the Engineering Org. (H) Notes seems to support distribution of information to the regional offices, but centralisation of work tasks to where the expertise is: in the headquarters (decentralising responsibility while centralising power and control, cf, (Clement et al, 94)). 4. The contradiction between tradition and change is fundamental to all system development (Ehn 89): but CSCW technology differs from traditional, single-user technology in ways that 4

The analysis is based on the Soft Dialectics approach, cf, footnote 3.

104

NOKOBIT-98 makes this contradiction more difficult to handle. A full appreciation of the potential in CSCW technology requires a shift in both cognitive and organisational structures (eg, (Orlikowski 92a)), and the shift has to be company-wideor at least include whole collectives of individuals. The benefits are connected to a company-wide (or at least groupwise) utilisation of the potential in the technology, thus the number of people (within a collective) using the technology is a measure of its success. The change to a different technological paradigm is a large one and costs a lot. Most of the 12 case organisations make use of Notes to support their current way of working (closely tied to single-user applications). Existing organisational structures are supported or even strengthened by Notes. If a cooperative work structure is weak or lacking, a technology-based cooperative structure like Notes is not strong enough to overrule individually oriented work structuresnothing is changed.

Success and failure are relative characteristics Case studies that report of the inability to utilise the CSCW potential in Lotus Notes (and other CSCW products and applications), often present their finding as failures. It is, however, not obvious that successful utilisation of the potential of Lotus Notes is conceived as a success to all users or contribute to a successful organisation. In the Computer Org. (I) the technicians make technical information available for their non-technical colleagues through Notes databases. Use of Notes has improved the sales (the sales persons confirm this), also because the sales people are made to look up in the databases for technical information instead of calling the technicians (and thus save their time). The technicians claim that the solutions suggested by the sales people are better—they sometimes look into the sales documents to check what the sales people have done. Notes is used for monitoring the sales process as the sales document flow through the departments. Management gets status information automatically from the work flow documents, and a particular inverted "Top 10" accountability list of the sales people is automatically generated. The success story about full utilisation of CSCW technology can involve a lot of problems with respect to working conditions (loss of control, surveillance etc) in addition to being ethically questionable in a Norwegian working life context. Loss of autonomy and surveillance may create stress that can imply a health problem to some employees. Cooperation and interdependency increase the possibilities for competition, conflict, and mistrustthe blessings of “grouping” are mixed. A discussion of success and failure should include a discussion of the perspective basic to the evaluation, ie, who evaluates the system as a success and why. Structuring the discussion by means of contradictions can support this: contradictions express the rationale for actions and structures, indicating a potential for problems as well as their solutions.

DEFINING THE COLLECTIVE The notions of group and cooperative work are important in CSCW. I use the notion of “collective” to denote ensembles of individuals that collaborate to some extent, not necessarily as established or permanent groups (Schmidt & Bannon 92; Ciborra 96a; Schmidt & Simone 96). Several organisations experienced the definition of the collective as controversial.

Insiders and outsiders Notes adds to a structural boundary in the Independent Research Org. (A). The uneven distribution of Notes to the employees in the organisation is conceived by the employees to strengthen the differences between those who are “insiders” and those who are “outsiders”. Even if Notes is supposed to support information distribution to all employees, some employees (the data entry department) are not included. The fact that several employees are outsiders with respect to Lotus Notes implies that the information personnel has to do extra work to reach all.

105

Sesjon 2:2b

Control of membership The collective is not a permanent or well-defined group, and sometimes there are conflicting opinions to where the border of a collective is (Dreiem 98). In Notes the same documents and the same applications can be used for different purposes by different peopleemphasising flexibility and openness. Documents are normally used in different ways: minutes from a project meeting can be used by project members for some purposes and by management for other purposes. Documents made available to management are made for this purpose, and we feel sure that our work documents and drafts cannot come into the hands of others before we deliberately do so. We feel in control. Notes is different. The documents we make as our work papers and draft may at any time be available to others for purposes we do not know: other peopleincluding managementbecomes virtually present in the system (Public Office (G), Int. Industrial Org (L), Computer Org. (I)). In the Int. Industrial Org. (L) the top management has decided to use Lotus Notes and which documents should be entered. In the local organisation there is a tradition for sharing documents among the colleagues from before they were bought by the Int. Industrial Org. However, they feel insecure about how management and even colleagues in other departments in other countries will use the information they provideand end up with a second filing system where information that can possibly be used negatively or is sensible in any way is stored (Dreiem 98). They certainly feel that there are limits to who they want to include in their collective. Similar stories are told by other studies (eg, (Star & Ruhleder 94)). The inverted “Top 10” list of sales people accountability in the Computer Org. (I) is a visible sign of the “inclusion” of management in the sales people collective. The control of membership in a collective is important, and has to do with the contradiction between management and performance. Power is put on the agenda. As transparency is essential for control (Perin 91) explicit openness from management may be required to avoid problems of trust. Functions of management and performance that use the same material and tools for different purposes create a contradiction. This contradiction concerns CSCW technology in a particular way because of the rather abstract idea of a sharing collective underlying many of the applications, prevents a discussion of power. It seems both ethically right and useful to discuss who should control information about employees or information produced by employees. In the Independent Research Org. (A) the researchers were asked to register information about themselves so that the receptionist could get an overview of the employees and their actions. The researchers refused to do this, because they were afraid that the information would be used by management for control and surveillance. In the Public Office (G) the people creating the documents do not know what people with higher access levels actually see—or what they do with what they see—if or how they control their performance.

Control of the work situation Notes may influence the feeling of control of the work situation for some employees. In the Newspaper (E) Notes makes the coordination of work visible to all, and more controllable. Information is more easily accessible, and the overview created by this makes all journalists able to take more responsibility and initiative for articles and cases to write about. In the Computer Org. (I) Notes the introduction of Notes can be characterised as "by force": mildly by removing old systems and replacing them with Notes, not as mildly when ordering people to use Notes instead of telephone or other systems. This makes it even more surprising that Notes has been subject to self study, with just a short introduction to the existing databases. The sales people, for instance, do not know about all the databases with technical information—and they know that they don’t, they do not know how to search for them or make their own views, thus the work is not very efficient (made even less efficient by the large number of databases). Notes is both hampering and supporting work.

106

NOKOBIT-98

THE INDIVIDUAL BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT The contradiction between the individual and the collective is of course basic to CSCW as this technology aims to support individual users as members of a collectiveand thus will have to relate to the individuals when they need computer support for carrying out non-collective tasks as well. This contradiction is discussed in various forms by other authors, eg, by Grudin (94a) as a kind of problem that does not arise in single-user applications. In the Trade Union (C) the old-timers hesitated strongly to take Notes into use. They preferred the old system and the old way of working, and the young (male) newcomer who was responsible for the Notes application was inpatient with them. But all their knowledge, self-esteem and status in the organisation was based on the old way of working, supported by the old systems. Notesthe new systemweakened their competence in work seriously, and was silently boycotted. The Notes person claims that the Notes system is much more useful if all members of the collective use it, thus the pressure on "old-timers" to use the system is quite strong. The individual problem of not knowing how to use the technology becomes a collective problem. This problem is well-known from other CSCW applications, eg, calendar systems (Grudin & Palen 95).

Collectives depend on individuals Individual problems concerned with the technology stop being individual and become collective problems. In the Newspaper (E) Notes is used to coordinate the writing of an article between journalists and editors. The newspaper employs journalists with both technical and traditional journalist backgrounds. The technically skilled journalists find Notes easy to learn and use, and claim that Notes makes work easier. The traditionally skilled journalists find that Notes increases the complexity of work. Notes makes information less available—it hides information. The benefit for the collective of journalists and editors depends on all journalists to use Notes—which cost more for the traditionally skilled journalists. The way Notes is used seems to be dependent of the lowest knowledge level in the organisation. Notes increases the differences between those who know and those who do not (cf, eg, the Newspaper (E)). Particularly important is the level of knowledge management level. In the Research Institute (B), Notes is not very well utilised; the reason for this is that management wants everybody to use the current set of applications before a new one is introduced. The speed of introduction is thus adjusted to the "slow" users, and the "fast" users—who know about other Notes features they want to use in their work—complain that the introduction is too slow, and that the collective do not get the benefit they know they could have from Notes. They explain the slow speed with lack of technical knowledge at management level. Orlikowski (92a) explains the way Lotus Notes is used by reference to the users’ cognitive structures. The change of the cognitive structures of a collective depends on the individuals’ abilities to change. The Engineering Org. (H) evaluates the investments needed for learning more sophisticated ways of utilising Notes as very high even if they acknowledge the potential for a large benefit. The small investments maybe not lead to great benefit for anybody, even if it also does not lead to large losses. The utilisation of the technology depends of course on management understanding of the potential. Management can easily limit the use and usefulness of the technology. The Publisher (D) uses Notes as an archive, mainly because the manager and Notes enthusiast does not know of other ways of using the technology. However, the archive functions make it difficult to utilise the infrastructural properties of Notes. In this case Notes replaces the old archive, even if its potential is a start of an infrastructure that requires changes in both knowledge, perspectives, routines, and actions—a large effort. The two views meet in a contradiction between tradition and change (cf, (Ehn 89)).

107

Sesjon 2:2b

Misfit between work tool and work The contradiction between the work task and Lotus Notes as a tool in work is visible in several cases. Notes often lead to more work or new work tasks, it is experienced as an inappropriate tool, or it influences the (feeling of) control of work situation as well as other working conditions. Studies of Notes applications used by individual users confirm studies of use of computers in work in general (Gasser 86). Notes is seen to lead to: 1. additional work: Notes may introduce more work to some employees, in particular if all employees for some reason or other do not use Notes. The information distributors in the Independent Research Org. (A) carry out extra work because not all of the employees have yet installed Notes. They have to use several information systems in order to reach all the employees—and as the old paper based system reaches everybody, paper gets priority. Paper is the most adequate tool for them to do a good job with information distribution, even if Notes also has to be used. Similar experiences are reported in the Trade Union (C) and Int. Industrial Org (L). 2. new work tasks: Notes may introduce new work tasks, or shift the relative importance of work tasks, for some employees. In the Research Institute (B) Notes is used for administrative purposes, and automates some administrative tasks. The researchers claim, however, that the administrative workload has increased after Notes was introduced—they conclude that there is now more time for research. Notes increases one part of the work—the administration—both the amount of work and its importance, and automates it. New work tasks are also introduced in the Trade Union (C). They have to use Notes to secure the future usefulness of the system, by making documents accessible to future users. As in the Int. Industrial Org (L) they provide the basic requirements for future use, while prioritising shortterm efficiency. 3. an inappropriate tool: Quite a few people experience Notes as an inappropriate tool in work, for a variety of reasons. In the Newspaper (E) the difficulties that the traditionally skilled journalists experience in using Notes make them very dependent on help from the technically skilled journalists, thus requiring time and effort from all to get the work done. Notes does not increase efficiency in work. The feeling of mastering the work now depends on technical knowledge rather than professional journalist knowledge (thus Notes affects knowledge structures in the newspaper). The current formal hierarchy in the Trade Union (C) is implemented by levels of access to information in the Notes application: managers have access to all documents, other employees not. The secretaries who sign documents while their boss is away need to know his password, and thus get access to personal documents of all employees—certainly not an intended effect of a more rigorous implementation of the formal hierarchy. In organisations where parts of the work is done by talking to each other (Orr 86), Notes cannot really make an alternative to the social meeting places (ie, the physical bulletin board in the coffee area). The Engineering Org. (H) is an example of this. The inappropriateness of Notes in the Int. Industrial Org. (L) stems from unacceptable technical difficulties of getting Notes up and running for the sales people. The consequence is that they do not use Notes except for entering copies of the sales reports required and requested by management. The Public Office (G) finds it difficult to use electronic communication and document handling because of the formal, governmental rules to which the organisation is and that presupposes paper documents (eg, red and yellow forms, signatures). They follow the rules and file both electronic and paper copies.

108

NOKOBIT-98

THE PROCESS OF “GROUPING” The process of transforming the organisation to fit CSCW-based technology that replaces singleuser is a social and organisational process resistant to design. Social processes are slow and partly unpredictable (Ciborra 96b), but organisational development and planned learning processes are possible. The studies I have seen indicate that current work practice overrules new technology, and that the introduction of cooperative work styles should be a process by itself that departs from needs in work. The only organisation in my material that utilised Lotus Notes as a CSCW system in cooperative work was the Police Dept. (F). Their Notes application supported existing cooperative work that were in need of support. The application was developed and introduced as all other systems, with a small group testing a pilot system and solid training for all before the system was introduced.

Transforming to cooperative work Technology creates needs, but “new needs” take some time to be articulated and really felt. Grudin & Palen (95) discusses why shared calendar systems are found useful ten years after they were seen as failures, and conclude that time and maturity of technology (quality, userfriendliness) and people (knowledge, being familiar with CSCW technology) are factors that influence success. The changes during the ten years are mental and interacts with how work is culturally and socially organised: technological possibilities are increasingly used, they shape practice and create needs. Even if most organisations do not utilise he CSCW potential in their Notes applications, experience with use can be used to build up technological fantasy that can suggest new applications and better utilisation of the technological possibilities (cf, eg, (Bratteteig 97; Sandahl & Jenssen 98; Bjerknes & Bratteteig 88)). The Newspaper (E) experienced that the Notes applications gave all a better overview of the production process, enabling all journalists to take more responsibility for creating a storyand thus changing the distribution of tasks and responsibilities in the newspaper. Some of the all-rounders in the Int. Industrial Org. (L) experienced that they could get new information by looking into the Notes database, and felt enhanced control and understanding of their work (Dreiem 98).

Existing organisational structures are preserved and strengthened Notes applications seem to preserve and strengthen rather than weaken existing organisational structures and knowledge differences. Current organisational power structures are implemented by mechanisms like access control or automatic status control information. The flexibility and situatedness of the informal organisation (which makes things run smoothly) turns out to be difficult to preserve when formal routines are structured by a Notes application. Secretaries signing documents when their boss is travelling now need to know his password to do that with Notes—the side effects being that they by this get access to all employees' documents (Trade Union (C)). Management insight in employees’ work creates uncertainty with respect to how they will use this insight (Int. Industrial Org. (L)), putting power relations on the agenda. Notes applications differ from the previously used single-user technology. A certain level of technical knowledge about Notes and the Notes application becomes necessary in order to carry out the work and fulfil the personal obligations connected to using Notes in work (Newspaper (E); Trade Union (C)).

Virtual embodied cooperation The same applications and documents can be used for different purposes by users and their managers (cf, contradiction between management and performance). The openness and flexibility advocated by CSCW makes the diversity of use less transparent, and the uncertainties

109

Sesjon 2:2b concerned with control surveillance is present. Invisible power is more difficult to meet than open power games (Bachrach & Baratz 62). The “virtual social fields” created by CSCW technology open for new managerial forms: the employer cannot rely on their employees being present at a particular place for a specific time (Perin 91). Work is done anywhere at any time, and management and benefits have to relate to individual results rather than presence. However, the physical presence is becoming more important as the availability of information with less quality assurance increases. Information is always created and interpreted in a context, and knowledge about the creator’s context make interpretation easier. In the Int. Industrial Org. (L) the lack of knowledge about possible interpreters (as audience) made the information creators careful with what information they made available. The uncertainty goes both ways; reading information with no knowledge about its creator or context makes the information almost unusable. An extra effort is required by the employees of a virtual organisation in which place is seen to play a minor role to realise this ambition (Beck 98).

THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF GROUPING Failures of use of a computer system usually have some reasonable explanationsLotus Notes is no exception. The explanations in this article have emphasised three difficult social processes concerned with power, personal matters, and difficult aspects of cooperation like competition and conflict. The “grouping”: becoming a cooperative work environment seems very easy, but turns out to be difficult and difficult to handle. CSCW literature generally does not emphasise the less positive aspects of cooperative workwhich adds to the complexity of introduction and use of CSCW technology. CSCW is not always open and including. The studies reported here suggest that a critical evaluation of the benefits of CSCW for cooperative work can be of use. If there is a large difference between the way the organisation works and the way the CSCW system anticipates the work to be organised and carried out, the smooth and subtle mutual interaction between the technology and the organisation will not take place; instead conflicts from re-action and work-arounds may arise. This article has tried to argue that some aspects of CSCW are inherent in the way that the technology is used because of its technological possibilities, and that these can be expected to be present in any organisation. I have discussed these aspects as contradictions: individual/collective, (collective) tool/(individual) work task, management/performance, and tradition/development. On the basis of the contradictions, I have discussed three problems that have to do with the process of mutual interaction or adjustment between technology and organisation: Defining the collective, The individual becomes more important, and The process of “grouping”. These problems can be addressed in system development to a certain extent: they will not disappear, but transparency and open discussion will make the problems possible to handle by the organisation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to the participants in the SUPPORT project, in particular Jon Petter Sefland, Hege Dreiem and Lene Kværne-Nielsen. I also would like to thank the students and my co-teacher Annita Fjuk in the Computers and Society course (autumn 1994). Thanks to Jonathan Grudin for comments to an earlier version of the article. Thanks also to the two anonymous reviewers for NOKOBIT’98 for providing useful comments.

110

NOKOBIT-98

REFERENCES Bachrach, P. & M.S. Baratz (1962): “Two Faces of Power”, American Political Science Reviews, vol 56, no 4, pp. 947-952 Bannon, L. (1993): “CSCW: An Initial Exploration”, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol 5, pp. 3-24 Bardram, J.E. (1996): “Organisational Prototyping: Adopting CSCW Applications in Organisations”, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol 8, no 1, pp. 69-88 Beck, E. (1998): Subtle Order; On Distribution, Visibility, and Tidying the Mess of Others, draft (submitted to CSCW’98), Department of Informatics, University of Oslo Beck, E. & Smørdal, O. (1997): Bruk av Lotus Notes i et inspektørvesen: “sammenknytting og orden”, Research Report 244 (April 1997), Department of Informatics, University of Oslo Berg, M. (1997): "On Distribution, Drift and the Electronic Medical Record: Some Tools for a Sociology of the Formal", Hughes et al. (eds): Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, ECSCW'97, Kluwer, pp. 141-156 Bjerknes, G. and Bratteteig, T. (1988): “The memoirs of two survivors—or evaluation of a computer system for cooperative work”, Proceedings for The Second Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work ACM, 26-28 Sept. 1988, Portland, Oregon, pp. 167-177 Bowers, J.; G. Button & W. Sharrock (1995): "Workflow from Within and Without: Technology and Cooperative Work on the Print Industry Shopfloor", Marmolin et al (eds): Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, ECSCW'95, Kluwer, pp. 51-66 Bratteteig, T. (1994): Edb-støttet samarbeid  en introduksjon (Computer supported cooperative work—An introduction) Note for the course ”Computers and Society” autumn 1994, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo Bratteteig, T. (1996): The Unbearable Lightness of Grouping working paper, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo Bratteteig, T. (1997): “Mutual Learning. Enabling cooperation in systems design”, Braa & Monteiro (eds): Proceedings of IRIS'20, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo Bratteteig, T. & Øgrim, L (1994): “Soft Dialectics–Structured Handling of Problem Situations in System Development”, Baets, W.R.J. (ed) (1994): Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Information Systems Nijenrode University, Breukelen, pp. 681-690 Bullen, C.V. & J.L. Bennet (1996): "Groupware in Practice: An Interpretation of Work Experiences", Kling (ed): Computerization and Controversy. Value Conflicts and Social Choices, Academic Press, pp. 348-382 Carstensen, P.H. & C. Sørensen (1996): “From the Social to the Systematic. Mechanisms Supporting Coordination in Design”, Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, vol 5 no 4, pp. 387-41 Checkland, P. and J. Scholes (1990): Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley, Chichester Ciborra, C.U. (1997a): "Introduction: What does Groupware Mean for the Organizations Hosting it?", Ciborra (ed): Groupware & Teamwork. Invisible Aid or Technical Hindrance, Wiley, pp. 119 Ciborra, C. (ed) (1997b): Groupware and Teamwork, John Wiley & Sons Clement, A.; P. Kolm, & I. Wagner (eds) (1994): NetWORKing: Connecting Workers In and Between Organizations IFIP Transactions A-38, North-Holland, Amsterdam

111

Sesjon 2:2b Dreiem, H. (forthcoming, 1998): Gjensidig påvirkning av organisasjon og teknologi ved innføring av gruppevare, Master thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo Ehn, P. (1989): Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., Hillsdale, New Jersey Ellis, C.A., Gibbs, S.J., & Rein, G.L. (1991): “Groupware. Some issues and experiences”, Communications of the ACM, vol 34 no 1, pp. 39-58 Essler, U. (1998): Analyzing Groupware Adoption: A Framework and Three Case Studies in Lotus Notes Deployment, Department of Computer and System Science, Stockholm University (PhD Thesis) Gasser, L. (1986): “The integration of computing and routine work”, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, vol 4 no 3, pp. 205-225 Giddens, A. (1984): The Constitution of Society, Polity Press, Oxford Grinter, R.E. (1997): “Doing Software Development: Occasions for Automation and Formalisation”, Hughes et al (eds): Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on ComputerSupported Cooperative Work, ECSCW'97, Kluwer, pp. 173-188 Grudin, J. (1989): “Why groupware applications fail: problems in design and evaluation”, Office: Technology and People, vol 4 no 3, pp. 245-264 Grudin, J. (1994a): “Groupware and social dynamics: Eight challenges for developers”, Communications of the ACM, vol 37 no 1, pp. 92-105 Grudin, J. (1994b): “Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: History and Focus IEEE Computer May 1994, pp. 19-26 Grudin, J. & Palen, L. (1995): “Why Groupware Succeeds: Discretion or Mandate?”, Proceedings of ECSCW'95, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 263-278 Gustavsen, B. (1992): Dialogue and Development Arbetslivscentrum & Van Gorcum, Assen/ Maastricht Hanseth, O. (1996): Information Technology as Infrastructure, PhD thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Gothenburg Hepsøe, V. (1997): "The Social Construction and Visualisation of a New Norwegian Offshore Installation", Hughes et al (eds): Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on ComputerSupported Cooperative Work, ECSCW'97, Kluwer, pp. 109-124 Hilde, T. (1997): Opplæring i gruppevaresystsmer. Et rammeverk for didaktisk analyse av opplæringssituasjonen, Master thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo Karsten, H. (1996): Interactions with collaborative technology: Lotus Notes in a network organization, Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, University of Jyväskylä (PhD Thesis) Kværne-Nielsen, L. (forthcoming 1998): Effekter på arbeid av innføring og bruk av gruppevare, Master thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo Markus, M.L. (1990): “Toward a ‘Critical Mass’ theory of Interactive Media”, Fulk & Steinfeld (eds): Perspectives on Organizations and Information Technology, Newbury Park, CA, Sage Næss, M. (1996): Teori møter praksis: et forslag til et rammeverk for studier av datastøttet samarbeid, Master thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo Orlikowski, W.J. (1992a): “Learning from Notes”, Proceedings of CSCW'92, Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ACM, New York, pp. 362-369 Orlikowski, W.J. (1992b): “The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations”, Organization Science, vol 3 no 3 (August 1992), pp. 398-427

112

NOKOBIT-98 Perin, C. (1991): “Electronic Social Fields in Bureaucracies”, Communications of the ACM, vol 34 no 2, pp. 75-82 Pinch, Trevor J. & Wiebe E. Bijker (1987): "The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts", s. 17-50 i Bijker, Wiebe et al (eds): The Social Construction of Technological Systems, MIT Press Sandahl, T.I. & A.E. Jenssen (1998): “The First Steps in Designing an SGML-Base Infrastructure for Document Handling”, to appear in Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems vol 10 Schmidt, K. & Bannon, L. (1992): “Taking CSCW Seriously. Supporting Articulation Work”, Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol 1 nos 1-2, pp. 7-40 Schmidt, K. & C. Simone (1996): "Coordination Mechanisms: Towards a Conceptual Foundation of CSCW System Design", Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, vol 5 no 2-3, s. 155-200 Sefland, J.P. (1998): Brukermedvirkning i utvikling av en gruppevareapplikasjonteori møter praksis, Master thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo Star, L. & Ruhleder, K. (1994): “Steps Towards an Ecology of Infrastructure: Complex Problems in Design and Access for Large-Scale Collaborative Systems”, Proceedings of the CSCW'94, ACM, pp. 253-264 Strauss, A. (1993): Continual Permutations of Action Aldine de Gruyter, New York Tyre, M.J. & Orlikowski, W.J. (1994): “Windows of Opportunity: Temporal Patterns of Technological Adaption in Organizations”, Organization Science, vol 5, no 1, pp. 98-118 Ulla, K. (1997): Teknologiforståelse. En undersøkelse av innføring av Lotus Notes og et forslag til undervisningsopplegg, Master thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo Walsham, G. (1993): Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations Wiley, Chichester Øgrim, L. (1993): Ledelse av systemutviklingsprosjekteren dialektisk analyse (Management of system development projects—a dialectical analysis) PhD Thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo

113