Advertisement

Coordination science: Challenges and directions

  • Mark Klein
Workflow and Coordination
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1364)

Abstract

Several distinct kinds of “coordination technology” have evolved to support effective coordination in cooperative work. This paper reviews some of the major weaknesses with current coordination technology and suggests several technical directions for addressing these weaknesses. These directions include developing semi-structured process representations that explicitly capture cooperative work inter-dependencies, exploiting advanced product and software design technologies for process design, and integrating coordination technologies to synergistically combine their strengths and avoid their individual weaknesses.

Keywords

Coordination Mechanism Cooperative Work Conflict Management Exception Handling Effective Coordination 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    The Action Workflow Approach to Workflow Management Technology. In Proceedings of CSCW '92, 1992Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kosanke, K. CIMOSA: Open System Architecture for CIM, Springer Verlag (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bravoco, R.R. and Yadav, S.B. Requirements Definition Architecture — An Overview. Computers in Industry 6 (1985), 237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown, D.C. Failure Handling In A Design Expert System, Butterworth and Co. (November 1985)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clancey, W.J. Classification Problem Solving. AAAI (1984), 49–55Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dean, D.L.D., Lee, J.D.L., Orwig, R.E.O., and Vogel, D.R.V. Technological Support for Group Process Modelling. Journal of Information Management Systems 11, 3 (Winter 1994–95)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Descotte, Y. and Latombe, J.C. Making Compromises Among Antagonist Constraints In A Planner. Artificial Intelligence 27 (1985), 183–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eppinger, S.D., Whitney, D.E.W., Smith, R.P.S., and Gebala, D.A.G. A Model-Based Method for Organizing Tasks in Product Development. Tech. Report 3569-93-MS, Working Paper, MIT Sloan School of Management, May 1993Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischer, G., Lemke, A.C., McCall, R., and Morch, A.I. Making Argumentation Serve Design. Journal of Human Computer Interaction 6, 3–4 (1991), 393–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fox, M.S. and Smith, S.F. ISIS — A Knowledge-Based System For Factory Scheduling. Expert Systems (July 1984)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldstein, I. Bargaining Between Goals. In IJCAI, 1975, 175–180Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grudin, J. Groupware and Social Dynamics: Eight Challenges for Developers. Communications of the ACM 37, 1 (January 1994), 93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hewitt, C. Offices Are Open Systems. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 4, 3 (July 1986), 271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karbe, B.H. and Ramsberger, N.G. Influence of Exception Handling on the Support of Cooperative Office Work. In Multi-User Interfaces and Applications. Elsevier Science Publishers, Gibbs, S. and Verrijin-Stuart, A.A., 355–370, 1990Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klein, M. Supporting Conflict Resolution in Cooperative Design Systems. IEEE Systems Man and Cybernetics 21, 6 (December 1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klein, M. iDCSS: Integrating Workflow, Conflict and Rationale-Based Concurrent Engineering Coordination Technologies. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications 3, 1 (January 1995).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klein, M. Conflict Management as Part of an Integrated Exception Handling Approach. AI in Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturing (AI EDAM) (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lander, S. and Lesser, V.R. Negotiation To Resolve Conflicts Among Design Experts. Tech. Report Dept of Computer and Information Science, August 1988Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee, J. and Lai, K.Y. What's In Design Rationale?. Human-Computer Interaction 6, 3–4 (1991), 251–280Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    MacLean, A., Young, R., Bellotti, V., and Moran, T. Questions, Options and Criteria: Elements of a Design Rationale for User Interfaces. Journal of Human Computer Interaction: Special Issue on Design Rationale 6, 3–4 (1991), 201–250Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malone, T. and Crowston, K. Towards an Interdisciplinary Theory of Coordination. Tech. Report 120, Technical report, MIT Center for Coordination Science, 1991Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marcus, S., Stout, J., and McDermott, J. VT: An Expert Elevator Designer. Artificial Intelligence Magazine 8, 4 (Winter 1987), 39–58Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mark, W. and Dukes-Schlossberg, J. Cosmos: A System for Supporting Engineering Negotiation. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications: Special Issue on Conflict Management in Concurrent Engineering II, 3 (September 1994), 173–182Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCall, R. PHIBIS: Procedurally Hierarchical Issue-Based Information Systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Planning and Design in Architecture, ASME, Boston MA, 1987Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mi, P.W. and Scacchi, W. Modelling Articulation Work in Software Engineering Processes. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Software Process, IEEE, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1991, 188–201Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Murata, T. Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis and Applications. Proceedings of the IEEE 77, 4 (.apr 1989), 541–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peluso, E., Goldstine, J., Phoha, S., Sircar, S., Yukish, M., Licari, J., and Mayk, I. Hierarchical Supervision for the Command and Control of Interacting Automata. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Command and Control Research, June 21–23 1994Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith, R.G. The Contract Net Protocol: High-Level Communication And Control In A Distributed Problem Solver. IEEE Transactions on Computers C-29, 12 (December 1980), 1104–1113Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stefik, M.J. Planning With Constraints (Molgen: Part 1 & 2). Artificial Intelligence 16, 2 (1981), 111–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suchman, L.A. Office Procedures as Practical Action: Models of Work and System Design. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 1, 4 (October 1983), 320–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sussman, G.J. and Steele, G.L. Constraints — A Language For Expressing Almost Hierarchical Descriptions. Artificial Intelligence 14 (1980), 1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilensky, R. Planning And Understanding, Addison-Wesley (1983)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Winograd, T. A Language/Action Perspective on the Design of Cooperative Work. In Proceedings of CSCW '86, 1986Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yakemovic, K.C.B. and Conklin, E.J. Report on a Development Project Use of an Issue-Based Information System. In CSCW 90 Proceedings, 1990, 105–118Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Klein
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Coordination Science (CCS)MIT Sloan School of ManagementCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations