Once we have identified a set of workplace types and cooperation types, we have a basis for coping with different cooperative work situations in an application domain. Because if we start to combine workplace types with cooperation types, we realize that in general almost all combinations are feasible. As figure 1 shows, these combinations only differ to their degree of usefulness.
Figure 1: Suitability of cooperation types for workplace types|
[(**) very useful (*) useful (-) just working]
What does figure 1 mean? We found out that cooperation types and workplace types can almost freely be intertwined. This means in a concrete application domain, that we can provide substantial support for cooperative work for a wide range of working situations by recombining a few workplace types with a small set of cooperation means and media. The combination we actually choose, depends on what work analysis and job design (or business process reengineering) tells us.
Bäumer et al. ( 1997) D. Bäumer, G. Gryczan, R. Knoll, C. Lilienthal, D. Riehle, H. Züllighoven: Framework Development for Large Systems. CACM, October 1997, Vol. 40, No 10, pp. 52-59.
Grudin ( 1994). J. Grudin: Groupware and Social Dynamics: Eight Challenges for Developers. CACM, Vol 37, No 1, 1994, pp. 92-105.
Malone and Crowston ( 1994) T. W. Malone, K. Crowston: The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.87-119
Mark et al. ( 1997). G. Mark, L. Fuchs, M. Sohlenkamp: Supporting Groupware conventions through Contextual Awareness, In W. Prinz, T. Rodden, J. Hughes, and K. Schmidt (eds.), Proceedings of ECSCW'97, Sept. 7-11, Lancaster, England, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1997, pp. 253-268.
Schmidt and Bannon ( 1992) K. Schmidt, L. Bannon: Taking CSCW Seriously: Supporting Articulation Work. In: Computer Supported Cooperative Work: An International Journal, 1 ( 1992) 1, pp. 1-33.