4.2 Coordination of Collaborative Activities
4.2.3 Coordination Aspects of a Collaboration Artifact
As an activity, coordination is mediated (see also [6]), and a collaboration artifact thus needs to contain support for coordination. I have found it useful to characterize3 general coordination aspects of a collaboration artifact according to the 3 main “corners” in an activity (c.f. figure 3.1). These 3 aspects are termed (i) shared object(s), (ii) shared tool, and (iii) shared communication. This sub-section discusses these 3 coordination aspects of a collaboration artifact and uses the Patient Scheduler as an example for showing how design of such a collaboration artifact can be informed (c.f.
chapter 1) by this conceptual framework.
Figure 4.3 summarizes the coordination aspects of a collaboration artifact (CA). Even though the drawings in figure 4.3 are depicted as if the two actors (S1 and S2) have different objects of work (O1 and O2), meaning that they are involved in a co-ordinated activity, these three coordination aspects are used at all three levels of a collaborative activity. I differentiate between the term common and shared. I use the term common object to denote an object of work that two or more actors have in common, i.e. they have a common objective of realizing this object of work, which lies within each subject’s conscious focus. I use the term shared object to denote that the object of work is accessible to several actors for inspection, modification, relocation, etc., but that the actors not necessarily have the object of work in common.
Shared object(s): Sharing objects are the foundation for instrumental coordination. The figure illustrates that Subject 1 only sees the object of Subject 2, and vice versa, and that the operations and/or the results are externalized and visible via the collaboration artifact. The absence of the subject-subject interaction in this model means there is no communication. For example, within a surgical de-partment (S1), operation scheduling (O1) involves tight coordination with the radiology department (S2). The Patient Scheduler (CA) supports sharing both the schedule of operations (O1) and the schedule of radiology examinations (O2), and thereby enables each of these two departments to coordinate their work according to one-another. Another example of a collaboration artifact pro-viding access to representations of the core object of work, i.e. the patient, is the medical record; by reflecting the work of one physician (S1–O1), the record (CA) helps another physician (S2) to coordinate his treatment of the patient (O2) with his colleague.
When we are providing access to a shared object we cannot always ensure that subject 1 and 2 have common objectives – they might even have con-flicting ones. Hence, providing coordination support through sharing objects of work creates the need for access mechanisms telling who can do what with the objects given access to. To take the example of scheduling again, the surgical department and radiology do not always have complete common motives; the surgical department wants the examination as fast as possible, but radiology wants to schedule the particular examination in a series of similar examinations for efficiency reasons. Hence, it is necessary for the radiology department to control exactly in what way the surgical depart-ment can access their schedules. Support for such access mechanisms and access control is well-known within CSCW technologies and is a part of the Patient Scheduler as well.
Shared tool: We have already discussed how sharing a tool – or artifact in general – creates an interdependency in work creating a need for coordinating the accessibility and usage of the artifact. But, if the artifact (CA) supports multiple users (synchronously as well as asynchronously), and if it reflects the work of other users, a shared artifact can also be used when coordinating work. The figure il-lustrates that the collaboration artifact mediates both the activities of Subject 1 and 2 towards their respective objects, but that the artifact also mediates Subject 1’s relation to Subject 2’s object, and vice versa. An important example of a shared artifact within most organizations is the script of work, which is the foundation for scripted coordination. The operation schedule (CA), as written on the wallboard at the surgical clinic (see photo in [6]) or created in thePatient Scheduler, is a shared artifact within the collaborating ensemble (S1 and S2 being e.g. the surgeon and the nurse), which is involved in the operations. By reflecting the status of the work, each actor can coordinate his/hers work using this script.
In the case where Subject 1 and 2 do not have a common objective, the shared artifact needs an allocation mechanism, telling who can use the artifact, when, and for what. For example, a radiology machine is a shared artifact within a hospital and can be represented as a resource with a corresponding schedule and made accessible through the Patient Scheduler for other departments to book examinations directly. However, in situations where radiology and the requesting department do not have completely common objective (which is frequent), radiology needs to have a way to specify and control the use of their resources. Hence, mechanisms for allocation, telling who can book examinations when, and mechanisms for reservations, telling what kinds of examinations can be booked, need to be in-cornorated in such a system.
Shared communication: Finally, the most prevail-ing form of coordination is communicative coordina-tion through semiotic accoordina-tions, which can be supported by shared means of communication. Communication is depicted as a gray line in the figure. Examples of coordination through communication in the Patient Scheduler, are the semi-structured appointment and note, which support communication across time and space, through semi-structured written text.
Fundamental for communication and interaction in gen-eral is the interpretation of the sign systems used. Hence, it is often of great importance for the communicating partners to identify each other and to establish who they are interacting with and thereby asses their background.
Hence, in communication a mechanism of identification is necessary and in the case of conflicting motives an authenticating of this identity is often nec-essary as well. Within hospitals, for example, titles and uniforms are used (as short-cuts) to identify the medical background and knowledge of your communication partner.