R. A. Hirschheim
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
In order to apply office automation in a meaningful fashion, it is apparent that some understanding of the office is necessary. Most descriptive studies of the office have placed great emphasis on manifest office actions, suggesting that offices are the embodiment of these actions. The meanings of these actions or tasks, however, have been given scant attention. There exist a number of office activity or task taxonomies, but they do little more than provide a simple and limited structure through which to conceive of an office. From a social-analytic perspective this appears to be overly simplistic and misses the richness of social action in an office. Focusing on the overt and manifest aspects of the office may very well lead to its misrepresentation. This paper takes a critical look at the way offices are conceived in the office automation literature and suggests alternatives that may provide a better understanding of the real functions of an office.
- 1 AKLILU, T. Office automation--office productivity--the missing link. In Proceedings of the Office Automation Conference (Houston, Mar.). AFIPS Press, Reston, Va., 1981.Google Scholar
- 2 ALLISON, G. Essence of Decision. Little-Brown, Boston, 1971.Google Scholar
- 3 ARGYRIS, C., AND SCHON, D. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison- Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1978.Google Scholar
- 4 ATTARDI, G. Office information systems design and implementation. Paper presented at the SOGESTA School on Office Information Systems, Sogesta, Italy, Aug./Sept. 1981.Google Scholar
- 5 BARBER, G. Embedding knowledge in a workstation. In Office Information Systems, N. Naffah, Ed. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982.Google Scholar
- 6 BARBER, G. Supporting organizational problem solving with a work station. ACM Trans. Of{. Inf. Syst. 1, 1 (Jan. 1983), 45-67. Google Scholar
- 7 BRACCHI, G., AND PERNICI, B. The design of office systems. ACM Trans. Off. Inf. Sys. 2, 4 (Apr. 1984), 151-170. Google Scholar
- 8 BURRELL, G., AND MORGAN, G. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. Heinemann, London, 1979.Google Scholar
- 9 CHECKLAND, P. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley, Chichester, England, 1981.Google Scholar
- 10 CHEUNG, C., AND KORNATOWSKI, J. The OFS User's Manual. Computer Systems Research Group, Univ. of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., Canada, Mar. 1980.Google Scholar
- 11 CHmSTIE, B. Face to File Communication: A Psychological Approach to Information Systems. Wiley, Chichester, England, 1981. Google Scholar
- 12 CHURCHMAN, C. The Design of Inquiring Systems. Basic Books, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
- 13 CmORRA, C. Information systems and transactions architecture. Policy Analy. Inf. Syst. 5 (Dec. 1981).Google Scholar
- 14 CIBORRA, C. Management information systems: A contractual view. In Beyond Productivity: Information Systems Development for Organizational Effectiveness, T. Bemelmans, Ed. North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1983.Google Scholar
- 15 CmORRA, C. The transaction cost approach: A research agenda for the MIS fields. In Critical Issues in Information Systems Research, R. Boland and R. Hirschheim, Eds. Wiley, Chichester, England, 1986.Google Scholar
- 16 CLEGG, S., AND DUNKERLEY, D. Organization, Class and Control. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1980.Google Scholar
- 17 CONRATH, D., HIGGINS, C., THACHENKARY, C., AND WRIGHT, W. The electronic office and organizational behaviour--Measuring office activities. Comput. Networks 5, 6 (1981), 401-410.Google Scholar
- 18 COOK, C. Organizational and office analysis. In Proceedings of the Office Automation Conference (Houston, Mar.) AFIPS Press, Reston, Va., 1981.Google Scholar
- 19 CYERT, R., AND MARCH, J. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1963.Google Scholar
- 20 DAY, R., AND DAY, J. A review of the current state of negotiated order theory: An appreciation and critique. Sociol. Quart. 18 (1977).Google Scholar
- 21 DELGADO, A. The Enormous File. Murray, London, 1979.Google Scholar
- 22 DODSWELL, A. Office Automation. Wiley, Chichester, England, 1983. Google Scholar
- 23 DUMAS, P., DU ROURE, G., ZANETrI, C., CONRATH, D., AND MAIRET, J. MOBILE-Burotique: Prospects for the future. In Of/ice Information Systems, N. Naffah, Ed. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982.Google Scholar
- 24 ELLIS, C. Information control nets: A mathematical model of office automation flow. In Proceedings of the 1979 Conference on Simulation, Measurement, and Modelling of Computer Systems (Boulder, Colo., Aug. 13-15). ACM, New York, 1979, pp. 225-240.Google Scholar
- 25 ENGEL, G., GROPPUSO, J., LOWENSTEIN, R., AND TRAUB, W. An office communications system. IBM Syst. J./8, 3 (1979).Google Scholar
- 26 GOLDKUHL, G., AND LYYTINEN, K. A language action view on information systems. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information Systems, M. Ginzberg and C. Ross, Eds. (Ann Arbor, Mich., Dec.). 1982.Google Scholar
- 27 GUNTON, T. Moving fast up the learning curve. In Computing (London), Special Report on Office Automation, June 1983.Google Scholar
- 28 HABERMAS, J. The Theory of Communicative Action: Vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Beacon Press, Boston, 1984.Google Scholar
- 29 HAMMER, M., AND SIRBU, M. What is office automation. In Proceedings of the Office Automation Conference (Atlanta, Ga., Mar.). AFIPS Press, Reston, Va., 1980.Google Scholar
- 30 HAMMER, M., AND ZISMAN, M. Design and implementation of office information systems. In Proceedings of the NYU Symposium on Automated Office Systems (New York, May). 1979.Google Scholar
- 31 HEWITT, C., ATTARDI, G., AND SIML M. Knowledge embedding in the description systems OMEGA. MIT draft paper, MIT, Cambridge, Mass., 1981.Google Scholar
- 32 HIGG{NS, C., AND SAFAYENI, F. A critical appraisal of task taxonomies as a tool for studying office activities. ACM Trans. Of{. Inf. Syst. 2, 4 (Oct. 1984), 331-339. Google Scholar
- 33 HIRSCHHEIM, R. Information systems epistemology: An historical perspective. In Research Methods in Information Systems, E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald, and T. Wood- Harper, Eds. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985.Google Scholar
- 34 HIRSCHHEIM, R. Office Automation: A Social and Organizational Perspective. Wiley, Chichester, England, 1985. Google Scholar
- 35 Jus6, C. Psychological Types. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1923.Google Scholar
- 36 KEEN, P., AND BRONSZMA, G. Cognitive style research: A perspective for integration. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information Systems, C. Ross, Ed. (Boston, Dec.}. 1981.Google Scholar
- 37 KEEN, P., AND SCOTT MORTON, M. Decision Support Systems: An Organizational Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1978.Google Scholar
- 38 KILMANN, R., AND MITROFF, I. Problem defining and the consulting/intervention process. California Manage. ReD. 21, 3 (Spring 1979), 26-35.Google Scholar
- 39 KLEIN, H. Organizational implications of office systems: Towards a critical social action perspective. In Office Systems, A. Verrijn-Stuart and R. Hirschheim, Eds. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986. Google Scholar
- 40 KLEIN, H., AND HIRSCHHEIM, R. issues and approaches to appraising technological change in the office: A consequentialist perspective. O/rice: Technol. People 2 (1983), 15-42.Google Scholar
- 41 KLEMMER, S., AND SYNDER, F. Measurement of time spent communicating. J. Commun. 22 ( 1972).Google Scholar
- 42 KLING, R. The organizational context of user-centered software designs. MIS Quart. 1, 4 {Dec. 1977), 41-50.Google Scholar
- 43 KLINO, R. Social analysis of computing: Theoretical perspectives in recent empirical research. ACM Comput. Surv. 12, 1 (Mar. 1980), 61-110. Google Scholar
- 44 KONSYNSKI, B., BRACKER, L., AND BRACKER, W. A model for specification of office comunications. IEEE Trans. Commun. COM-30, 1 (Jan. 1982), 27-36.Google Scholar
- 45 KURKE, L., AND ALDRICH, H. Mintzberg was right! a replication and extension of the nature of managerial work. Manage. Sci. 29, 8 (Aug. 1983), 975-984.Google Scholar
- 46 LEHTINEN, E., AND LYYTINEN, K. SAMPO project: A speech act based IA methodology with computer aided tools. Rep. WP-3, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Jyvaskyla, 1983.Google Scholar
- 47 LEHTINEN, E., AND LYYTINEN, K. A model theoretical interpretation of information systems using illocutionary logic. Working paper, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Jyvaskyla, 1984.Google Scholar
- 48 LINDBLOM, C. The science of muddling through. Public Adm. ReD. 19, 2 {Spring 1959).Google Scholar
- 49 LUM, V., CHOY, D., AND SHU, N. OPAS: An office procedure automation system. IBM Syst. J. 21, 3 (1982).Google Scholar
- 50 Lv~'rINEN, K. Implications of theories of language to information systems. MIS Quart. 9, 1 {Mar. 1985), 61-74.Google Scholar
- 51 LYYTINEN, K., KLEIN, H., AND HIRSCHHEIM, R. The effectiveness of office information systems: A social action perspective. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- 52 LYYTINEN, K., AND LEHTINEN, E. On information modelling through iUocutionary logic. In Proceedings of the 3rd Scandinavian Research Seminar on Information Modelling and Data Base Management (Tampere). 1984.Google Scholar
- 53 MASON, R., AND MITROFF, I. A program for research on management information systems. Manage. Sci. 19, 5 (1973), 475-487.Google Scholar
- 54 MINTZBERG, H. The Nature of Managerial Work. Harper & Row, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
- 55 MUMFORD, E., AND WEIR, M. Computer Systems in Work Design: The ETHICS Method. Associated Business Press, London, 1979.Google Scholar
- 56 NEWELL, A., AND SIMON, H. Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1972. Google Scholar
- 57 OUCH{, W. A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Manage. Sci. 25, 9 (Sept. 1979), 833-848.Google Scholar
- 58 PANKO, R. 38 offices: Analyzing needs in individual offices. ACM Trans. Off. Inf. Syst. 2, 3 (July 1984), 226-234. Google Scholar
- 59 PANKO, R., AND SPRAGUE, R. Towards a new framework for office support. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOA Conference {Philadelphia, June 21-23). ACM, New York, 1982, pp. 82-92. Google Scholar
- 60 PAVA, C. Managing New Office Technology: An Organizational Strategy, Free Press, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
- 61 PODGER, D. High level languages--A basis for participative design. In Design and Implementation of Computer-Based information Systems, N. Szyperski and E. Grochla, Eds. Sijthoff & Noordhoff, Alphen ann den Rijn, 1979.Google Scholar
- 62 POPPEL, H. Who needs the office of the future? Harvard Business Rev. 60, 6 (Nov.-Dec. 1982), 146-155.Google Scholar
- 63 SCHRODER, H., DRIVER, M., AND STEUFERT, S. Human Information Processing. Holt Rinehart, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
- 64 SEARLE, J. What is a speech act. In The Philosophy of Language, J. Searle, Ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1971.Google Scholar
- 65 SHELL, B. Coping with complexity. Office: Technol. People 2 (1983).Google Scholar
- 66 SIRBU, M., SCHOICHET, S., KUNXN, J., AND HAMMER, M. OAM: An office analysis methodology. Memo OAM-016, MIT Office Automation Group, 1982.Google Scholar
- 67 SPRAGUE, R. A framework for research on decision support systems. In Decision Support Systems: Issues and Challenges, G. Fick and R. Sprague, Eds. Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, 1980.Google Scholar
- 68 STEWART, R. Managers and Their Jobs. Macmillan, London, 1967.Google Scholar
- 69 STRAUSS, A., SCHATZMAN, L., BUCHER, R., EHRLICH, D., AND SATSHIN, M. The hospital and its negotiated order. In The Hospital in Modern Society, E. Friedson, Ed. Free Press, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
- 70 SUCHMAN, L. Office procedures as practical action: a case study. Tech. Rep. Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, Calif., 1979.Google Scholar
- 71 SUCHMAN, L. Office procedure as practical action: models of work and system design. ACM Trans. OH. Syst. 1, 4 (Oct. 1983), 320-328. Google Scholar
- 72 SUCHMAN, L., AND WYNN, E. Procedures and problems in the office. Office: Technol. People 2 (1984).Google Scholar
- 73 SUTHERLAND, J. An office analysis and diagnosis methodology. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass., February 1983.Google Scholar
- 74 TAYLOR, F. Principles of Scientific Management. Harper, New York, 1911.Google Scholar
- 75 UHLIG, R., FARBER, D., AND BAIR, J. The Office of the Future. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979.Google Scholar
- 76 VICKERS, G. Human systems are different. J. Appl. Syst. Analysis 10 (1983), 3-13.Google Scholar
- 77 WEINSTEIN, D., AND WEINSTEIN, M. Roles of Man: An Introduction to the Social Sciences. Dryden Press, Hinsdale, Ill., 1972.Google Scholar
- 78 WILENSKY, H. Organizational Intelligence. Basic Books, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
- 79 WILLIAMSON, O. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust implications, Free Press, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
- 80 WILLIAMSON, O. Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. J. Law Econ. 22, 2 (Oct. 1979).Google Scholar
- 81 WOOD-HARPER, T. AND EPISKOPOU, D. The multi-view methodology--Applications and implications. In Beyond Productivity: Information Systems Development for Organizational Effectiveness, T. Bemelmans, Ed. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983.Google Scholar
- 82 WYNN, E. Office conversation as an information medium. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, Univ. of California, Berkeley, 1979.Google Scholar
- 83 ZlSMAN, M. Representation, specification and automation of office procedures. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wharton School, Univ. of Pennsylvania, 1977.Google Scholar
- 84 ZLOOF, M. Office-by-example: A business language that unifies data, word processing and electronic mail. IBM Syst. J. 21, 3 (1982).Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Understanding the office: A social-analytic perspective
Comments