In this paper, I want to argue for the importance of considering materiality in our studies of knowledge in organizations. In particular, I want to make the case that our understanding of organizat...

We propose a genre taxonomy as a knowledge repository of communicative structures or "typified actions" enacted by organizational members. The genre taxonomy is intended to help people make sense of diverse types of communicative actions and provide ideas for improving work processes that coordinate the communication of information. It engages several features to achieve this objective. First, the genre taxonomy represents the elements of both genres and genre systems as embedded in a social context reflecting the communicative questions why, what, who, when, where, and how (5W1H). In other words, the genre taxonomy represents the purpose, content, participants, timing, location, and form of communicative action. Second, the genre taxonomy distinguishes between widely recognized genres such as a report and specific genres such as a particular company's technical report, because the difference sheds light on the context of genre use. Third, the genre taxonomy represents use and evolution of a genre over time to help people understand how a genre is used and changed by a community over time. Fourth, the genre taxonomy represents aspects of information coordination via genres, thus providing ideas for improving work processes using genres. We have constructed a prototype of such a genre taxonomy using the Process Handbook, a process knowledge repository developed at MIT. We have included both widely recognized genres such as the memo and specific genres such as those used in the Process Handbook itself. We suggest that this genre taxonomy may be useful in the innovation of new document templates or methods for communication because it helps to clarify different possible uses of similar genres and explicates how genres play a coordination role among people and between people and their tasks.

This study found that the use of a computer conferencing system in an R&D lab was significantly shaped by a set of intervening actors—mediators—who actively guided and manipulated the technology and its use over time. These mediators adapted the technology to its initial context and shaped user interaction with it; over time, they continued to modify the technology and influence use patterns to respond to changing circumstances. We argue that well-managed mediation may be a useful mechanism for shaping technologies to evolving contexts of use, and that it extends our understanding of the powerful role that intervenors can play in helping CSCW applications succeed.

In this article, we build on and extend research into the cognitions and values of users and designers by proposing a systematic approach for examining the underlying assumptions, expectations, and knowledge that people have about technology. Such interpretations of technology (which we call technological frames) are central to understanding technological development, use, and change in organizations. We suggest that where the technological frames of key groups in organizations—such as managers, technologists, and users— are significantly different, difficulties and conflict around the development, use, and change of technology may result. We use the findings of an empirical study to illustrate how the nature, value, and use of a groupware technology were interpreted by various organizational stakeholders, resulting in outcomes that deviated from those expected. We argue that technological frames offer an interesting and useful analytic perspective for explaining an anticipating actions and meanings that are not easily obtained with other theoretical lenses.

Abstract This paper explores the introduction of a group‐ware technology—Lotus Corporation's Notes®—into one office of a large organization and attempts to understand the changes in work practices and social interaction facilitated by the technology. The results reveal that a number of organizational elements, such as mental models (which affect how people understand and appropriate groupware) and structural properties (reward systems and workplace norms), significantly influence how group‐ware technology is implemented and used. Specifically, the findings suggest that in the absence of mental models that appreciate the collaborative nature of groupware, such technologies will be interpreted in terms of more familiar personal and stand‐alone technologies, such as spreadsheets. Further, in competitive and individualistic organizational cultures—where there are few incentives or norms for cooperating or sharing expertise—groupware on its own is unlikely to engender collaboration. Such products will be inter...