In this paper1, we investigate and discuss the underlying nature of the requirements traceability problem. Our work is based on empirical studies, involving over 100 practitioners, and an evaluation of current support. We introduce the distinction between pre-requirements specification (pre-RS) traceability and post-requirements specification (post-RS) traceability, to demonstrate why an all-encompassing solution to the problem is unlikely, and to provide a framework through which to understand its multifaceted nature. We report how the majority of the problems attributed to poor requirements traceability are due to inadequate pre-RS traceability and show the fundamental need for improvements here. In the remainder of the paper, we present an analysis of the main barriers confronting such improvements in practice, identify relevant areas in which

Over the last 10 years, Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) has identified a base set of findings. These findings are taken almost as assumptions within the field. In summary, they argue that human activity is highly flexible, nuanced, and contextualized and that computational entities such as information transfer, roles, and policies need to be similarly flexible, nuanced, and contextualized. However, current systems cannot fully support the social world uncovered by these findings. This paper argues that there is an inherent gap between the social requirements of CSCW and its technical mechanisms. The social-technical gap is the divide between what we know we must support socially and what we can support technically. Exploring, understanding, and hopefully ameliorating this social-technical gap is the central challenge for CSCW as a field and one of the central problems for HCI. Indeed, merely attesting the continued centrality of this gap could be one of the important intellectual contributions of CSCW. This paper also argues that the challenge of the social-technical gap creates an opportunity to refocus CSCW as a Simonian science of the artificial. To be published in Human-Computer Interaction Preprint- Ackerman- Challenge of CSCW 1 1.

The term organizational memory is due for an overhaul. Memory appears to be everywhere in organizations; yet, the term has been limited to a few uses. In this paper we examine what memory in an organization really is. Based on an ethnographic study of a telephone hotline group, this paper presents a micro-level analysis of a hotline call, the work activity surrounding the call, and the memory used in the work activity. We do this analysis from the viewpoint of distributed cognition theory, finding it fruitful for an understanding of an organization's memory. Keywords Organizational memory, knowledge management, collective memory, group memory, information sharing, distributed cognition, CSCW, computer-supported cooperative work INTRODUCTION The term organizational memory has been overworked and confused. Burdened with the requirement to reuse experience, the term organizational memory obscures and ignores critical functions of the organization's memory. Instead, only some forms of ...

This study explores the premise that knowledge in new product development proves both a barrier to and a source of innovation. To understand the problematic nature of knowledge and the boundaries that result, an ethnographic study was used to understand how knowledge is structured differently across the four primary functions that are dependent on each other in the creation and production of a high-volume product. A pragmatic view of “knowledge in practice ” is developed, describing knowledge as localized, embedded, and invested within a function and how, when working across functions, consequences often arise that generate problematic knowledge boundaries. The use of a boundary object is then described as a means of representing, learning about, and transforming knowledge to resolve the consequences that exist at a given boundary. Finally, this pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries is proposed as a framework to revisit the differentiation and integration of knowledge.

This paper investigates an important, yet under-researched topic in CSCW, namely shared, or common, information spaces. We provide some background to work in the area, and then proceed to examine features of such spaces. The work involved in both putting information in common, and in interpreting it, has often not been sufficiently recognized. Through a number of situations we discuss the influence of particular conditions, and the translations required. We show how, in various ways, it requires added work to place items in common, and open up the question of how this might affect use of the WWW, often seen as the ultimate common information space. 1. Introduction One of the distinguishing features of the CSCW field is its persistent attempts to come to terms with the sociality of work, with a view to better understanding the nature of cooperative work as a basis for designing genuinely "supportive" computer-based information systems. In its attempts to achieve this goa

: Within the community of CSCW the notion and nature of workflow systems as prescriptions of human work has been debated and criticised. Based on the work of Suchman (1987) the notion of situated action has often been viewed as opposed to planning work. Plans, however, do play an essential role in realising work. Based on experiences from designing a computer system that supports the collaboration within a hospital, this paper discusses how plans themselves are made out of situated action, and in return are realised in situ. Thus, work can be characterised as situated planning. This understanding is backed up by Activity Theory, which emphasises the connection between plans and the contextual conditions for realising these plans in actual work. Introduction The issue of workflow systems has been addressed by several authors as ways of routing information objects among users, and to specify automatic actions to be taken in that routing typically according to certain process models (Me...

Distributed system management is concerned with the tasks needed to ensure that large distributed systems can function in accordance with the objectives of their users. These objectives are typically set out in the form of policies which are interpreted by the system managers. There are benefits to be gained by providing automated support for human managers, or actually automating routine management tasks. In order to do this, it is desirable to have a model of policies as objects which can be interpreted by the system itself. The model is summarised. It is clear that there is the potential for conflicts between policies. These conflicts may be resolved informally by human managers, but if an automated system is to recognise them and resolve them appropriately it is necessary first of all to analyse the types of conflict which may occur. We analyse the types of overlap which may occur between policies, and show that this analysis corresponds to several familiar types of policy conflict...

Complex design problems often cannot be solved by individuals or by homogenous groups. Communities of interest (CoIs) (defined by their collective concern with the resolution of a problem) bring together stakeholders from different communities of practice (CoP). Reaching a common understanding between these stakeholders is a major challenge due to the "symmetry of ignorance" caused by their respective cultures and their use of different knowledge systems. Our research has focused on the development of conceptual frameworks and innovative socio-technical environments to exploit the "symmetry of ignorance" as a source for social creativity among CoIs. Gerhard Fischer 2 IRIS'24, Norway 1

Modern commercial organisations are facing pressures which have caused them to lose personnel. When they lose people, they also lose their knowledge. Organisations also have to cope with the internationalisation of business forcing collaboration and knowledge sharing across time and distance. Knowledge Management (KM) claims to tackle these issues. This paper looks at an area where KM does not offer sufficient support, that is, the sharing of knowledge that is not easy to articulate.

Design is a rich domain in which to investigate barriers and biases in computer-supported communication because it involves many different modes of communication in social-technical contexts. This chapter briefly describes different design approaches. It analyzes the biases and barriers of two different types of design communities: communities of practice and communities of interest. To address the communication challenges between diverse design communities, boundary objects are needed to establish common ground and shared understanding in the context of complex design tasks. We explore the unique possibilities that computational media have to support our conceptual framework. Our work is based on the fundamental belief that there is no media-independent communication and interaction—that tools, materials, and social arrangements are always involved in some way in these activities. The possibilities and the practice of design are functions