Collective learning Conflict between Computerised Collective Memory and the Prescriptive Organisation Organizational Memory as Process not Object Collective decision making and knowledge management in oncology Cooperative work conditions in a satellite control room. READ MY LIPS....BUT ALSO THE REST Collective memory from the everyday work. Visualised co-ordination support in distributed decision making Knowledge Management for Collective Learning and Organisational Memory Knowledge graphs Shifting Perspectives on Organizational Memory General discussion

Conflict between Computerised Collective Memory and the Prescriptive Organisation Henrik Artman. Department of Communication Studies Linköping University S 581 83 Linköping e-mail: henar@tema.liu.se Summary of position paper HA presented some first observation from a central for rescue services (911 central). The general problem is that all people in the central control room should have some idea of a current event to be handled, at the same time as they should each take an independent responsibility, in order to work efficiently. During daytime each operator has special responsibility for the fire-brigade, ambulance and breakdown lorries/police/extended services respectively. The specific operator is responsible for knowing where each car in the "his/hers" service is geographically and what each unit is doing. In practice all the operators have got a quite clear image the presence or absence of cars at their ordinary sites, as they seldom ask the responsible person about this.The formal task allocation prescribes a distribution of responsibilities: those who are charged with keeping track of ambulances should only be doing this, others, responsible for fire trucks should only be doing this, etc. This formal distribution is counteracted by a computer system, which is introduced to keep track of the events. The computerised collective memory helps the operators to coordinate their action via the computer, while the prescriptive organisation requires them to either distributing the task immediately or telling each other when any new action is undertaken. It seems that the computer which is designed to centralise the information in fact also decentralises the information as everybody cannot be updated on everything that is written into the computer. As a consequence the team runs the risk that, when there is very high work load, all information get very fragmented, that is everyone knows a little about every event, but no one has a full picture of any specific detail. Presentation and discussion In his presentation, Henrik attempted to relate the various papers to each other, and questioned the current trend of moving from generalities to particularities. Are we ready for this transition? Henrik proceeded by claiming that we must have models, that are temporal fixations, of work to proceed and build new system. He proposed that we must both study the particulars and the whole as they go together. This might sound just as one of this clichees. But take as an example the question of responsibility. The organisation often has to know exactly who is responsible, what procedures they have used, (procedures are often designed in order to be able to tell who is responsible) etc. That is why there exist general requirements. If we neglect such and only study particular activities, we might miss quite a lot of important stuff which belong to the cognitive system., e.g. that people forget, do not notice, have a limited attention span. It should also be noted and that responsibility in teams is always distributed over artifacts and people and that the actual decision, or working process is a collective accomplishment. This means that the ideal case of prescriptions and regulative procedures are seldom met. The emphasis on particulars might have problem for us in designing better system. If we can accept a model then it follows that we can discuss this model and compare with other models in different respects. The conflict between the enthnography informed and the traditional science perspectives might do more harm that good. We should be able not only to say what people do, but also to predict what they can do and what will happen because of the intended changes. For this we need to do models, not only descriptions. When we say that we should design systems which promote competence, we do not acknowledge that "human-artifcts" are joint cognitive systems. This means that introducing new tools, procedures or technology, forces us to work in new ways. This is not promoting competence. it is simply changing the conditions. After the new artifacts, the actors need new form of knowledge and do not need their old forms. Reification of our views of cognition and computer systems as separate pieces is still restraining our imagination, even if we try to change our concepts by introducing a new vocabulary. Henrik proposed that when we talk about collective memory and collective learning it is exactly all those things that traditional cognitive psychology has ignored, as they are not inside of peoples heads: symbols, tools, journals, cheat sheets, negotations, gestures, collaborative action etc. Does this mean that we throw all cognitive psychology babies out with the bathwater? Second, we have so many different concepts that only are partly different; common information space, articulation of work, coordination mechanisms, joint cognitive system, distributed cognition, situated action, etc. How about our competence at articulating our own work in the research community?