How to Use Information Technology for Cooperative Work: Development of Shared Technological Frames



Technological frames, participants’ assumptions about information technology (IT), and in particular about the usage of the technology for everyday cooperative work, are a relevant factor for IT related behavior. Incongruent technological frames are associated with problems during the application and use of a new IT in an organization. This paper presents a field study which applies a pre–post-design in a freight forwarding company. During face-to-face discussion the participating employees of the company negotiated agreements regarding the future usage of a new mobile technology system for every day cooperative work between dispatcher agents and truck drivers. To support the development of shared technological frames the moderation technique STWT (socio-technical walkthrough) was applied. The results describe the structural changes in technological frames, and show to what extent these were shared by the participants. Based on the results possibilities to improve support for the development of shared technological frames are discussed.


introduction of new IT technological frames shared agreements moderation visualization socio-technical walkthrough 



I would like to thank Thomas Herrmann and Gabriele Kunau for their support of the study presented here. Additionally, I thank the reviewers for their helpful comments regarding earlier versions of this paper.


  1. Barley, S. R. (1986): Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observations of CT Scanners and the Social order of Radiology Departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 31, pp. 78–108. doi: 10.2307/2392767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartlett, F. C. (1932): Remembering: An Experimental and Social Study. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., E. Salas and S. A. Converse (1993): Shared Mental Models in Expert Team Decision Making. In N. J. Castellan (ed): Individual and Group Decision Making, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 221–246.Google Scholar
  4. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., S. I. Tannenbaum, E. Salas and C. E. Volpe (1995): Defining Competencies and Establishing Team Training Requirements. In A. Guzzo, E. Salas and Associates (eds): Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 333–380.Google Scholar
  5. Carell, A., T. Herrmann, A. Kienle and N. Menold (2005): Improving the Coordination of Collaborative Learning with Process Models. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers and T. W. Chan (eds): Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years!, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 18–27.Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, J. M. (Ed.). (1995): Scenario-Based Design for human computer interaction. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, H. H. (1996): Using Language. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. Crawford, A. (1994): Advancing Business Concepts in a JAD Workshop Setting. Yourdon: Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  9. Davidson, E. (2002): Technology Frames and Framing: A Socio-Cognitive Investigation of Requirements Determination. MIS Quarterly, vol. 26(4), pp. 329–358. doi: 10.2307/4132312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson, E. (2006): A Technological Frames Perspective on Information Technology and Organizational Change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 42(1), pp. 23–39. doi: 10.1177/0021886305285126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson, E. and D. Pai (2004): Making Sense of Technological Frames: Promise, Progress and Potential. In B. Kaplan, D. P. Truex, D. Wastell, A. T. Wood-Harper and J. I. DeGross (eds): Information Systems Research: Relevant Theory and Informed Practice, Boston: Kluwer Academic, pp. 473–491.Google Scholar
  12. DeSanctis, G. and M. S. Poole (1994): Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organization Science, vol. 5(2), pp. 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dittes, J. E. and H. H. Kelley (1956): Effects of Different Conditions of Acceptance on Conformity to Group Norms. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol. 53, pp. 100–107. doi: 10.1037/h0047855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dourish, P. and G. Button (1998): On “Technomethodology”: Foundational Relationships Between Ethnomethodology and System Design. Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 13, pp. 395–432. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci1304_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flavell, J. H. (1992): Perspectives on Perspective Taking. In H. Beilin and B. Pufall (eds): Piaget’s Theory: Prospects and Possibilities. The Jean Piaget Symposium Series, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 107–139.Google Scholar
  16. Gigone, D. and R. Hastie (1993): The Common Knowledge Effect: Information Sampling and Group Judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 59, pp. 959–974. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gioia, D. A. (1986): Symbols, Scripts, and Sensemaking: Social Cognition in Organizational experience. In H. P. Sims Jr. and D. A. Gioia (eds.): The Thinking Organization: Dynamics of Organizational Social Cognition, San Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
  18. Goffman, E. (1974): Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harper & Row: New York.Google Scholar
  19. Gordon, A. D. (1999): Classification. 2nd ed. Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton.MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Hartswood, M., R. Procter, R. Slack, A. Voß, M. Buscher, M. Rouncefield, et al (2002): Co-Realisation: Towards a Principled Synthesis of Ethnomethodology and Participatory Design. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 13, pp. 7–20.Google Scholar
  21. Heath, C. and P. Luff (1992): Collaboration and Control. Crisis Management and Multimedia Technology in London Underline Line Control Rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 1, pp. 69–94. doi: 10.1007/BF00752451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herrmann, T., A. Kienle and N. Reiband (2003): Meta-Knowledge—A Success Factor for Computer-Supported Organizational Learning in Companies. Educational Technology & Society, vol. 6, pp. 9–13.Google Scholar
  23. Herrmann, T., M. Hoffmann, G. Kunau and K. U. Loser (2004a): A Modelling Method for the Development of Groupware Applications as Socio-Technical Systems. Behaviour & Information Technology, vol. 2, pp. 119–135. doi: 10.1080/01449290310001644840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herrmann, Th., G. Kunau, K. U. Loser and Menold (2004b): Sociotechnical Walkthrough: Designing Technology Along Work Processes. In A. Clement et al. (ed): Artful Integration: Interweaving Media, Materials and Practices. Proceedings of the 8th Participatory Design Conference 2004, New York: ACM, pp. 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herrmann, T., L. Schöpe, E. Erkens, & M. Hülder (Eds.). (2005): Mobile Speditionslogistikunterstützung. Schlussbericht des Verbundsforschungsprojektes SpiW Mobile Speditionen im Web. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. Holtzblatt, K. (2002): Contextual Design. In J. A. Jacko and A. Sears (eds): The Human–Computer Interaction. Handbook, New Jersey: Mahwah, pp. 941–963.Google Scholar
  27. ISCED. (1997): International Standards of Education. UNESCO-UIS, 2006.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, D. W. and R. Johnson (1995): Creative Controversy. Intellectual Challenge in the Classroom. Interaction Book Company: Edina.Google Scholar
  29. Karsten, H. (1995): Converging Paths to Notes: in Search for Computer-Based Information Systems in a Networked Company. Information Technology & People, vol. 8(1), pp. 7–34. doi: 10.1108/09593849510081594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karsten, H. (2003): Constructing Interdependencies with Collaborative Information Technology. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 12(4), pp. 437–464. doi: 10.1023/A:1026197001679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Karsten, H. and M. Jones (1998): The Long and Winding Road: Collaborative IT and Organisational Change. In S. Poltrock and J. Grudin (eds.): Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, New York: ACM, pp. 29–38.Google Scholar
  32. Karsten, H. and A. Laine (2007): User Interpretations of Future Information System Use: A Snapshot with Technological Frames. International Journal of Medical Informatics, vol. 76(1), pp. 136–140. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keysar, B. (1998): Language Users as Problem Solvers: Just What Ambiguity Problem do they Solve? In S. R. Fussell and R. J. Kreuz (eds): Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 175–200.Google Scholar
  34. Klebert, K., E. Schrader and W. Straub (1987): KurzModeration. Windmühle: Hamburg.Google Scholar
  35. Khoo, M. (2001): Community Design of DLESE Collections Review Policy: A Technological Frames Analysis. In E. A. Fox and C. L. Borgman (eds.): Proceedings of the First ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 157–164.Google Scholar
  36. Krauss, R. M. and S. R. Fussell (1991): Perspective-Taking in Communication: Representations of Others’ Knowledge in Reference. Social Cognition, vol. 9(1), pp. 2–24.Google Scholar
  37. Kunau, G. and Menold, N. (2005). Technisch unterstützte, kooperative Arbeitsprozesse: Partizipative Gestaltung und Qualifizierung. In Th. Herrmann, L. Schöpe, E. Erkens and M. Hülder (eds.): Mobile Speditionslogistikunterstützung, Aachen: Shaker Verlag, pp. 4/18–4/36.Google Scholar
  38. Lamnek, S. (2005): Qualitative Sozialforschung. Beltz: Lehrbuch. Weinheim.Google Scholar
  39. Law, Y. and J. Lee-Partridge (2003): Towards a Strategy for Sense-Making of Empirical Knowledge Management Perceptions—The TFL Methodology. In R. H. Sprague, Jr. (ed.): Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (CD-ROM), Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lin, A., & T. Cornford (2000): Framing Interpretation Management. In W. J. Orlikowski, S. Ang, P. Weill, H. C. Krcmar, and J. I. DeGross (Eds.): Proceedings of the 21st International Conference of Information Systems., Brisbane, Atlanta: Association for Information Systems, pp. 197–205.Google Scholar
  41. Lin, A. and S. Leiser (2005): The Social and Political Construction of Technological Frames. European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 14(1), pp. 49–59. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mark, G. (2002): Conventions and Commitments in Distributed CSCW Groups. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 11, pp. 349–387. doi: 10.1023/A:1021289427473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marks, M. A., C. S. Burke, M. J. Sabella and S. J. Zaccaro (2002): The Impact of Cross-Training on Team Effectiveness. The Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87(1), pp. 3–13. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mathieu, J. E., T. S. Heffner, G. F. Goodwin, E. Salas and J. A. Cannon-Bowers (2000): The Influence of Shared Mental Models on Team Process and Performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 2, pp. 273–283. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mathieu, J. E., T. S. Heffner, G. F. Goodwin, J. A. Cannon-Bowers and E. Salas (2005): Scaling the Quality of Teammates’ Mental Models: Equifinality and Normative Comparisons. Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 26, pp. 37–56. doi: 10.1002/job.296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mayring, P. (2000): Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozial Forschung, vol. 1(2),
  47. McLoughlin, I., R. Badham and P. Couchman (2000): Rethinking A—Political Process in Technological Change: Socio-Technical Configuration and Frames. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, vol. 12(1), pp. 17–37. doi: 10.1080/095373200107210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Menold. (2006): Wissensintegration und Handeln in Gruppen. Förderung von Planungs- und Entscheidungsprozessen im Kontext computerunterstützter Kooperation. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.Google Scholar
  49. Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi (1995): The Knowledge Creating Company. Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar
  50. Norman, D. A. and D. E. Rumelhart (1975): Memory and Knowledge. In D. A. Norman and D. E. Rumelhart (eds): Exploration in Cognition, San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  51. Novak, J. D. (1998): Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah.Google Scholar
  52. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992): Learning from Notes: Organizational Issues in Groupware Implementation. In M. Mantel and R. Baecker (eds.): Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, New York: ACM, pp. 362–369.Google Scholar
  53. Orlikowski, W. (1996): Improvising Organizational Transformation over Time: A Situated Change Perspective. Information Systems Research, vol. 7(1), pp. 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Orlikowski, W. J. and D. C. Gash (1994): Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 2, pp. 174–207. doi: 10.1145/196734.196745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Piaget, J. (1926): The Language and Thought of the Child. Harcourt, Brace: New York.Google Scholar
  56. Piaget, J. and B. Inhelder (1956): The Child’s Conception of Space. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.Google Scholar
  57. Robinson, M. (1993): Design for unanticipated use. In G. De Michelis, C. Simone and K. Schmidt (eds.): Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, September, 1993, Milan, Italy, Norwell, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 13–17.Google Scholar
  58. Salas, E., K. C. Stagl and C. S. Burke (2004): 25 Years of Team Effectiveness in Organisations: Research Themes and Emerging Needs. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 19, pp. 47–92. doi: 10.1002/0470013311.ch2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Satish, K. P. (2006): Technological Frames of Stakeholders Shaping the SDI Implementation: A Case Study from India. Information Technology for Development, vol. 12, no. 4, Special issue, part I: Implementation of spatial data infrastructures in transitional economies, pp. 311–331.Google Scholar
  60. Schank, R. C. and R. P. Abelson (1977): Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Erlbaum: Hillsdale.MATHGoogle Scholar
  61. Schmidt, K. and L. Bannon (1992): Taking CSCW Seriously: Supporting Articulation Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 1(1), pp. 7–40. doi: 10.1007/BF00752449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stasser, G. (1999): The uncertain role of unshared information in collective choice. In L. Thompson, J. M. Levine and D. Messick (eds): Shared Cognition in Organisations. The Management of Knowledge, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 49–70.Google Scholar
  63. Stasser, G. and W. Titus (1985): Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 48, pp. 1467–1478. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stout, R. J., J. A. Cannon-Bowers, E. Salas and D. M. Milanovich (1999): Planning, Shared Mental Models, and Coordinated Performance: An Empirical Link is Established. Human Factors, vol. 41(1), pp. 61–71. doi: 10.1518/001872099779577273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Strauss, A. (1985): Work and the Division of Labor. The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 26(1), pp. 1–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1985.tb00212.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Strauss, A. (1988): The Articulation of Project Work: An Organizational Process. The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 29(2), pp. 163–178. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1988.tb01249.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Suchman, L. A. (1987): Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–Machine Communications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GESIS-ZUMAMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations