Studies on non-computer issues

Besides the work in the field of CRM described to some detail in the introduction, there is need for a few notes on cultural issues concerning both the field of medicine and the Internet.

4.1.1. Culture in the field of medicine

An interesting account based on cultural issues, more specifically in the medical profession, is a study by Cicourel (1990). He analysed routine discourses that occurred in a hospital setting, and showed that the process of reaching a medical diagnosis is not merely an intellectual undertaking. It involves complex social processes between practitioners who vary in status and areas of expertise. The processes of exchanging observations and assessing each other’s credibility become important factors when a diagnosis is to be put forward. In that sense Cicourel shows how crucial trust is in the matter of providing sources for solution and decision. He concludes that whatever information system or technology is to be launched into this setting; it must provide some evidence of its own credibility.

4.1.2. Trust on the Internet

Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1998) discuss the formation and maintenance of trust in global virtual teams. In their view, such teams are characterised by what Kristof, Brown, Sims Jr., and Smith (1995) have defined to be temporary, culturally diverse,

geographically dispersed, and communicating by electronic means. Jervenpaa and Leidner point to some limitations in their exploratory study. For instance, how the trust concept in the study assumes risk for the participants, and that the participants actually have a choice. The communication that surfaced in their case study was primarily asynchronous. Further, the risk and rewards were grade based, as the participants in the study were master students. Handy (1995) argues that trust requires touch, and that the excessive uncertainty in the electronic environment may rule out the possibility of formation of trust. This claim is challenged by Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1998) who state that certain communication behaviours and member actions suggest that trust can exist in purely virtual teams.

4.1.3. Naturalistic decision-making

In a series of case studies reported by Klein (1998), the common denominator founds a critique against the classical decision making studies. Klein takes a completely different stance as he and his colleagues move out of the laboratory and into the environment where the decision-making naturally takes place, hence the term naturalistic decision-making. Klein and his colleagues treated the participants as the experts in contrast to the laboratory settings.

[We] came to respect and admire them. This admiration may have biased our work, or it may have informed it. When we study naïve subjects who are performing unfamiliar tasks, and we know what the right answers are, then the best our subjects can do is not get it wrong. (p. 287)

This fresh methodological approach has reported new insights; specifically Klein and colleagues have put forward a model of Recognition-Primed Decisions. A key point is that the way experts decide for action in many cases does not involve formal analysis and comparison. What typically is preferred is the first workable option, not necessarily the best option. This has implications regarding the training that should be done to educate newcomers. The focus ought to be on rapid responses to realistic scenarios, and incorporating both the odd and the common cases. The locus of study involves expert individuals in settings of time pressure, high stakes, inadequate information, ill-defined goals, poorly defined procedures, cue learning, context,

dynamic conditions and team coordination (Orasanu & Connolly, 1993, cited in Klein, 1998).

4.1.4. Communication and coordination studies influenced by DCOG The studies and theoretical foundation put forward by Ed Hutchins have many similarities to the study of naturalistic decision-making. The goal is to examine the knowledge in action, hence the perceived strength of ‘out of the laboratory’ studies becomes the common denominator in the case of both Hutchins and Klein (1998).

When it comes to the differences, it is mainly Hutchins’ focus and emphasis on the functional system that separates them. As previously described, the ‘merging’ of human and non-human actors makes up the unit of analysis in the DCOG approach (section 3.4.). Whereas Klein typically seems to ‘lift forward’ the leader, not surprising, as the goal is to build models of decision-making, commonly considered a leader task.

In Hutchins’ (1990) description of the joint navigational activity performed when navigating a large ship he shows how “ […] the detection of error requires access to errorful performance and the correction of error requires a functionally redundant distribution of knowledge” (p. 291). He illustrates these points with examples from navigational practice where technology often has a key role in defining ‘horizons of observation’, as making parts of the joint task visible to the team members. This concept illustrates the need for ‘open tools’ and ‘open interactions’¹² when people are collaborating in technology-rich environments. Hutchins argues further for the idea that this horizon only accounts for part of the picture. Besides the openness, there is a need for some overlap in existing knowledge. If the team members have no idea of each other’s domain or the whole picture (no overlap) it is easy to imagine the problems the team will encounter when they are to solve problems.

In the article Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit (1995b), Hutchins and Klausen make an effort to map data onto theory; something they argue is not a straightforward task. The study can be treated as explorative, however they identify several empirical findings and elaborate on these issues while ‘moving through’ an

12 Thus enabling ‘workspace awareness’ (see section 4.2.1.).

event analysis based on video/audio recordings from a simulated flight. Hutchins and Klausen show examples that make it clear how such concepts as expectations, intersubjectivity, redundancy, and access to information are vital to coordinate the socially distributed cognitive task of flying a modern airliner. A key point in DCOG theory is that one cannot know who knows what at any given time in the cognitive system, but by following the trajectories of information one can look for evidence to support what paths the information must have taken.

Artman (1999) has looked into understanding how people work in coordination centres, where their task is to control dynamic environments. His doctoral thesis sheds light on how different theoretical perspectives can be used in combination to solve some of the complex puzzles when analysing cognition, cooperation and technology within dynamic decision-making. He sees DCOG as a promising theoretical foundation for this type of study, as well as suggesting development to this framework in regard to including concepts of coordination and situation awareness. His empirical work is based on four studies, two micro-world, and two real-world studies. The micro-world studies have been carried out to investigate the hypothesis originated from the analysis of the real-world studies. Artman (1999) claims that coordination is dependent upon what material resources the actors have and use, as well as on each individual’s knowledge and the goals of the system (i). He further notes that situation awareness should be regarded as a constructive process (ii), and that situation awareness and coordination practices should be regarded as interdependent (iii).

Finally he claims that situation awareness is dependent upon information processing procedures and information representation (iv).