user participation and democracy: a discussion of...

© Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 1995, 7(1):73–98

AbstractScandinavian research projects in system de-velopment have traditionally put a strong em-phasis on user participation as a strategy forincreasing working life democracy. The arti-cle analyses a few of these projects with re-spect to this goal. We argue that there hasbeen a development from politics to ethics insystem development research, and that thepolitical dimension should be reintroduced.

A reorientation of system development strate-gies aiming at increasing working life democ-racy can learn from the historical successstories, in particular the combination of glo-bal strategy and local action used in the tradeunion projects in the 60’s. Recent develop-ment in technology and working life will,however, introduce new challenges to systemdevelopment.

1. IntroductionIn the Scandinavian countries, user par-ticipation in system development hasbeen discussed and practised for morethan two decades (Aarhus 1975, Bjerk-nes et al. 1987). User participation refersto the involvement of users in work ac-tivities during system development—theforms and degree of involvement vary(representative or direct involvement,consultants, or collaborators). Influencerefers to users having power to make de-sign decisions—the degree of actual in-fluence and power varies. User participa-tion aims at involving future users of acomputer based system in decisions dur-ing system development.

Three reasons for user participationin design are normally given, e.g.,(Bjørn-Andersen & Hedberg 1977):

User Participation and Democracy:A Discussion of Scandinavian Research

on System Development

Gro Bjerknes Avenir A.S., P.O.Box 6824 St. Olavs pl., N-0130 Oslo, Norway

[email protected]

Tone BratteteigUniversity of Oslo, Department of Informatics

N-0316 Oslo, Norway, [email protected]

G. Bjerknes & T. Bratteteig 74

• improving the knowledge uponwhich systems are built,

• enabling people to develop realisticexpectations, and reducing resist-ance to change, and

• increasing workplace democracy bygiving the members of an organisa-tion the right to participate in deci-sions that are likely to affect theirwork.

The first two reasons are rather practical,and they can be found in several systemdevelopment approaches. The belief isthat users’ knowledge will improve thefit between the computer system and thework. The third reason is culturally andpolitically biased, and found in, e.g., leg-islation and political literature.

Many Scandinavian research projectsin system development during the lastdecades have subscribed to the third rea-son—to increase workplace democracy.Democratic ideals emphasise the right tomaintain a different opinion than those inpower to forward opposing positions andto build knowledge on an alternative ba-sis to support a different view. In a de-mocracy those affected by a decisiontake part in the making of the decision.Historically this means giving equalrights for people with little or no power.All members in a democratic societyshould have the opportunity to take partin decision making through direct votingor through representatives voting forthem. An organisation can be seen as anarena for different opinions to meetand—having a democratic ideal—begiven a voice. Workplace democracymeans the right for all employees to haveinfluence on their work situation throughwork arrangements and participation indecision making fora. Work arrange-

ments usually concern several interestgroups thus workplace democracy alsoincludes balancing claims from the dif-ferent stakeholders. Many of the Scandi-navian research projects also aimed at in-creasing working life democracy, i.e.,‘industrial democracy’, expanding theworkers’ influence to include the soci-etal level as well.

Jørgen Bansler and Philip Kraft start-ed a debate about Scandinavian researchon user participation at the ParticipatoryDesign Conference in 1992 (Kraft andBansler 1992). They claimed that the re-search had little or no effect in society,and that it had outlived itself. The debateabout the success or impact on society byScandinavian approaches continued inpanels at the following IRIS Conferen-ce1 (Knudsen 1993), and in the April ’94issue of Scandinavian Journal of Infor-mation Systems, including the Kraft andBansler article (1992), a commentaryfrom Morten Kyng (1994), and an an-swer to this by Bansler and Kraft (1994).We want to join the debate with a slightlydifferent approach: we want to discussthe underlying ideas of this researchrather than the practical results thus tak-ing into consideration how user partici-pation in system development can con-tribute to democracy in working life andworkplaces. The historical basis formuch of the Scandinavian research onuser participation has been aimed at find-ing strategies for increased working lifedemocracy. We believe that the experi-ences from the last decades may be rele-vant to future system developers, even ifthe conditions for system developmentare rapidly changing. We want to createa discussion within the research commu-nity itself about how to utilise the largevolume of experiences and knowledge.


Scandinavian approaches to systemdevelopment have been characterised asuser-oriented rather than managementoriented and by their critical attitude (Ii-vari & Hirschheim 1992, Karasti 1994).One of several Scandinavian researchapproaches in which user participationhas been predominant, has been calledthe Collective Resource approach (Ehn& Kyng 1987) or the Critical approach(Bansler 1989). The Collective Resourceapproach to design explicitly aims at ‘de-mocracy and skill’ (Ehn & Kyng 1987, p.56) for the workers, using the collec-tive—the trade union—as a strategy toachieve this. This article follows two dif-ferent trends of the Collective Resourceapproach that have ended up being ratherdifferent although they share the samestarting point: the Scandinavian tradeunion projects in the early 70’s. The factthat the projects are so similar with re-spect to their objectives make the differ-ences between them interesting. We havechosen two trends that we know verywell: we are part of one of them hencethe article does not give an overview ofall Scandinavian research on user partic-ipation in system development.2 Thereare many reasons for basing our discus-sions on projects rather than theoreticalcontributions or influential persons.Within this particular tradition, the maintheoretical contributions have come afterthe projects, as a result of the projects. Astrong opposition to methods has empha-sised the building of an empirical basis tocriticise and improve existing methods.The fact is that the subsequent projectsinvolved many of the same researchers.Thus the projects also reflect a develop-ment of ideas in some of the Scandinavi-an research communities.

The first part of the article describesand discusses earlier system develop-ment research. We start with a descrip-tion of the first trade union projects. Sec-tion three describes a branch of projectscharacterised by their emphasis on de-sign for the skilled worker. In sectionfour we look at another project seriesstarting approx. at the same time with thesame basic values, but taking a differentpath by its focus on the use of computersin an organisational context. We summa-rise the projects in section five by dis-cussing the contradictions between har-mony and conflict, and politics and eth-ics. Section six discusses the four differ-ent levels of influence used in theresearch projects: work situation, workorganisation, inter-organisational rela-tions, and working life. In section sevenwe point at some characteristics of cur-rent development having consequencesfor future research on user participationin system development. In the last sec-tion we discuss user participation as ameans of achieving democracy.

2. The Scandinavian Trade Union ProjectsHistorically the starting point for userparticipation in system development wasthe discussion about the relationship be-tween work and democratic values inScandinavia around 1960 (Gustavsen1986). At that time, it was generallyagreed that industry should level the gen-eral democratic principles in society, andthat opportunities for increased individu-al engagement should be created as ameans to increase productivity and effi-ciency (Thorsrud et al. 1964, Thorsrud &Emery 1970). A large action programme


for improving the working life in Scandi-navia was designed and conducted as anindustrial democracy programme by TheNorwegian Federation of Trade Unions(LO) in cooperation with The Norwe-gian Employers’ Federation (NAF).NAF was interested in rationalisationand improved organisational develop-ment; LO wanted to empower the work-ers. One of the results of the CooperationProjects was a revised Worker Protectionand Working Environment Act (AML1977, Sørensen 1992). AML’s section 12states that workers and their representa-tives shall be kept informed about sys-tems used for planning and performingwork, and about planned changes in suchsystems. Sufficient education for usingthe systems, and participation in the de-sign process is emphasised. The mainidea is that the workers themselves shallcontrol and be responsible for perform-ing work.

Within this cooperative climate,some more explicitly stated politicalprojects were carried out to support andstrengthen the trade unions. Strongertrade unions were supposed to contributeto democracy by giving workers a voiceand an opportunity to influence theirwork situation. The trade unions werepart of the existing power structures insociety established to empower theworkers.

The first political project was initiat-ed by the Norwegian Iron and MetalWorkers’ Union (NJMF) in a resolutionmade at the annual meeting in 1970(Nygaard and Bergo 1974, Nygaard1979). The NJMF project started in thebeginning of January 1971, and endedbefore summer 1973. The objective wasto apply a workers’ perspective on devel-opment and introduction of new technol-

ogy in order to produce an action planthat would represent and strengthen theworkers’ position with respect to intro-duction and use of computer technology.

The NJMF project emphasised thatknowledge gained locally should be abasis for the trade unions to act on a cen-tral level. The results from the project in-cluded technology agreements (the firstmade at A/S Viking Askim in 1973),textbooks, and vocational training pro-grammes on technology.

The Swedish DEMOS project(DEMOkratiske Styringssystemer) from1975 to 1979 did research on behalf ofthe responsible and skilled worker(DEMOS 1979, Ehn & Sandberg 1979).The basic assumptions were that the useof computer technology contributes torationalising work and deskilling work-ers, and that there is a fundamental con-flict between workers and employersthat cannot be resolved. The responsibleworker has the right and duty to partici-pate in decisions concerning both what isproduced and how it is produced. Poweris not equally distributed between work-ers and management, however, and amodel for negotiations between manage-ment and unions on the introduction ofcomputers was proposed. The negotia-tion model more or less institutionalisesthe conflict between employers andworkers.

The objectives of the Danish DUEproject (Demokrati, Udvikling og Edb)from 1977 to 1980 were to build up re-sources within unions to increase the un-ions’ influence on the use of computersystems. The project also aimed at con-tributing to a professional curriculumand research programme in systems de-velopment (DUE 1978 & 1979, Kyng &Mathiassen 1979).


The first trade union projects, NJMF,DEMOS and DUE, have some character-istics in common. They were based onthe contradiction between capital andlabour3 claiming that there is an antago-nistic relationship between the two. Theyaimed at strengthening the labour side ofthe contradiction between workers, rep-resenting the labour, and management,representing the capital in order to makethe struggle more even. They were striv-ing for a democratic research and devel-opment process claiming that research-ers have the duty to support those withless power and resources. They alsoclaimed that, when not reflecting on theirrole, researchers often support those inpower (Sandberg 1975). The projects de-parted from strong trade unions, and theywere mainly concerned with the organ-ised work force and mainly with produc-tion. The researchers believed that work-ing life democracy can be reachedthrough trade unions as institutions rep-resenting a workers’ collective.

3. Design for the Skilled WorkerThe experience from the trade unionprojects showed that strong unions mayincrease the workers influence on tech-nology, but that this is not sufficient. Itappeared to be necessary to create alter-native technologies as well, to fight ven-dors’ monopoly. The focus shifted to themeans of production and the form andcontent of the working conditions. Thenext ‘generation’ of projects thus con-centrated on technological alternatives.

3.1. The UTOPIA projectThe UTOPIA project (Utbildning, Tek-nik, och Produkt I Arbetskvalitetsper-

spektiv) from 1981 to 1984 was a jointresearch project including several Scan-dinavian research institutions and theNordic Graphical Union (UTOPIA1981).

The goal of the UTOPIA project wasto develop technology for graphicalworkers that contributed to high qualitygraphical products, skilled work, and ademocratic organisation of work. Theproject aimed at creating technologicalalternatives for the involved trade union.The project limited its focus to workprocesses concerned with page make-upand image processing in the newspaperindustry. The research site was a labora-tory, in which trade union representa-tives participated as skilled workers.

In order to make a requirements spec-ification for a computer system to sup-port the chosen work process traditionalas well as less formal system descrip-tions were used. The descriptions werenot successful as means of communica-tion as they were too abstract. It turnedout to be easier to involve graphicalworkers in the design process through arather concrete approach using mock-ups and simulations of computer basedworking environments (Ehn 1989). Themock-ups were more or less sophisticat-ed, like paper boxes representing mouseand laser printers, or large paper draw-ings and (later on) slides showing alter-native screen layouts (Bødker et al.1987, UTOPIA 1985). It has been putforward that one of the benefits from thisapproach is that the workers do not haveto explicate their work processes, theycan express their craft skills by demon-strating and doing their work. This ap-proach was called ‘design-by-doing’.

The concrete result from the UTO-PIA project was a requirements specifi-


cation for a computer system for graphi-cal workers delivered to the vendor Lib-er. A pilot system Text and ImageProcessing System (TIPS) was devel-oped based mainly on the specification,and the application was tested in somenewspaper test sites. However, the ven-dor ran short of capital before the devel-opment of a commercial product wasended, and the application was neverused (Ehn 1989).

At the end of the UTOPIA project,the ‘tool perspective’ was developed,summarising the basic ideals of theproject (Ehn & Kyng 1984). The toolperspective is a design approach inspiredby the tool design within traditionalcrafts and influenced by the workers’control movement (Sandberg 1984). Thecomputer should be a tool for the skilledworker, and the worker should be in con-trol of the tool. The tool is conceived asa means of forming raw material intomore refined products—tools are exten-sions of the accumulated knowledgeabout tools and materials in a given workprocess. A specialised tool presupposesprofessional skills from the users. Thetool perspective fits with the design-by-doing approach.

The basic assumption in UTOPIAwas that democracy can be increased bychanging the balance of the contradic-tion between labour and capital, bystrengthening the labour side. The labourside can be strengthened through tradeunions. The work force was to build itspower on knowledge about work—as doguilds and professions. Control overwork can be achieved through special-ised tools controlled by workers through(i) tools requiring specific knowledge foruse, and (ii) a collective that controls theproduction of professional knowledge.

Computer systems can act as specialisedtools controlled by workers, and give thethem more control over their work.

Formal institutions like trade unionsare modern versions of guilds. Like theguilds, trade unions emphasise onegroup of workers without relating to oth-er groups or the workers collective; theywant to control the means of production,and they want to protect the professionalinterests and jobs of their members.Since democratic ideals emphasise a le-gitimate right for all groups to furthertheir interests research on behalf of oneunion does not necessarily contribute toa more democratic working life. An ex-ample from UTOPIA is the (female) per-forator typists. Their work has been con-ceived as just typing on PCs the text thatjournalists have written on typewriters.Their work thus depends on the fact thatjournalists do not use PCs. Gunnarson &Lodin (1983) discuss how the perforatortypists in their work situation can benefitfrom the new technology by arguing thatthey take over some of the work taskstraditionally performed by graphicalworkers. It is difficult to spot effects ofthis view in the concrete work agree-ments approved by the UTOPIA project,e.g., (Dilschmann & Ehn 1984).

We consider the UTOPIA project as acontinuation of the history of guilds andtrade unions as a support to graphicalworkers at the expense of women andunskilled men in the composers’ room,described by Cockburn (1983). Conse-quently, the UTOPIA project has notcontributed to the sort of workplace de-mocracy in which all stakeholders have avoice in the design of a new computersystem. Besides, the laboratory setting ofthe design process may have weakenedthe possibilities for influencing real life


work situations. The basis for design ofthe TIPS system was to control thecraftsmanship by one occupationalgroup rather than to support a set of worktasks carried out by that group in coordi-nation with other occupational groups.

3.2. Cooperative design The UTOPIA project has inspired re-search in the 90’s aimed at understandingand supporting the process of design as acooperative effort, e.g., (Greenbaum &Kyng 1991, Grønbæk 1991, Bødker &Grønbæk 1991, Mogensen 1994, Kyng1991).4 The basis for this research is thetool perspective and the design-by-doingapproach. The basic assumption is that acomputer system that fits work and iscontrolled by a worker can improve his/her work situation. The process of devel-oping the system needs to be influencedby the worker in order to get a good‘tool’. Focus is on how to conduct a par-ticipatory design process in which userscan influence the system. The designprocess is closely tied to a concrete worksituation.

The cooperative design process fo-cuses on the future use situation. In addi-tion to what is described through formalsystem descriptions, it is important topay attention to tacit knowledge and im-plicit, shared understanding. Even, ifpossible conflicts within the organisa-tional context is discussed (Bødker &Grønbæk 1991), the emphasis is put onactivities for facilitating user involve-ment in the design process. Cooperativeprototyping may uncover conflicts, butthe ‘conflicts cannot be dealt with or re-solved by experimental design’ (Grøn-bæk 1991, p. 47).

Greenbaum & Kyng (1991) include acollection of techniques for cooperative

analysis and design. Many of the contrib-utors place themselves within a traditionof workplace democracy and worker par-ticipation in design. Greenbaum andKyng argue for participation emphasis-ing usefulness and quality of the productrather than workplace democracy.

Cooperative design certainly sup-ports user participation. But the focus onprocess, action, and situatedness tends todisconnect the design process from thelarger organisational context in whichpower is enacted. The scope is the designprocess itself viewed as a (rather harmo-nious) dialogue between a designer and auser about the design of a particular com-puter application. For a cooperative de-sign process to increase workplace de-mocracy, the design must be realised in acomputer system—and the organisationmust be willing to introduce the pro-posed changes. If this is not the case, theparticipatory design process becomes apleasant experiment for those who par-ticipated—but the democratic ideals turninto an illusion, cf., (Procter & Williams1992). The underlying belief is that ademocratic process will give a democrat-ic result (i.e., an improved work situa-tion) therefore computer systems devel-oped in a cooperative process have a lib-erating power. This is not always thecase.

4. Use of Computers in an Organisational ContextThe second branch of projects also hadtheir basis in the first trade union projectsand shared the same values, ideas, andbeliefs as UTOPIA. Due to practical dif-ferences, however, the projects devel-oped differently—towards a focus on the


organisational context rather than theskilled worker.

4.1. The Florence projectThe starting point for the Florenceproject, from 1984 to 1987, was con-cerned with the fact that the large com-puter manufacturers may get too muchinfluence on the workplaces throughcomputer systems mainly aimed at auto-mation and rationalisation. A counterstrategy based on the trade unions’ pow-er and will to negotiate the introductionof computer technology in an organisa-tion or a branch was considered to be toodefensive. A more appropriate answer tothe large manufacturers would be com-puter systems based on the knowledge ofa profession. A profession was consid-ered to be the knowledge workers’ coun-terpart to the trade unions—sometimescoinciding with a union. Like the tradeunions, a profession organise employeesacross many different organisations, e.g.,the medical profession.

The Florence project focused onnursing for several reasons. Nursing is aprofession interacting with other profes-sions. It is female dominated as opposedto previous trade union projects. Nursingincludes ‘non-production work’, i.e., re-production, service and information giv-ing activities, and involves an interestingmix of manual and knowledge basedwork.

Before the Florence project started,the ‘application perspective’ was devel-oped as a background for the research,cf., (Bjerknes & Bratteteig 1984). Theapplication perspective emphasises thatcomputers should be understood in thecontext in which they are used, the valueof computer systems is demonstratedwhen the computer is used. Computers

should be designed as instruments forwork. The benefit of a computer systemshould be evaluated with respect to itsusers, not to the organisation as a whole.The basis for design should therefore bethe knowledge needed to maintain dailywork routines rather than productionroutines.

The aim of the Florence project wasto build computer systems for nurses’daily work, based on their professionallanguage and skills. Technological solu-tions should be tested in real work situa-tions, cf., the application perspective.The project therefore took place in a hos-pital ward. To avoid the bias from oneworkplace two hospital wards were in-volved in the project.5 Due to the work-place orientation a strict bias towards thenursing profession was difficult to main-tain; other occupational groups, like phy-sicians and nursing assistants, had to beconsidered as well. These groups weretherefore also represented in the projectgroup. A representative from the profes-sional nursing federation participated inthe steering committee of the project.

The project resulted in two proto-types (Bjerknes & Bratteteig 1987a;Bjerknes et al. 1985) and a pilot systemwhich was used in the hospital ward evenafter the formal completion of the project(Bjerknes & Bratteteig 1988a). The pilotsystem is an example of a computer sys-tem built to support a profession. Even ifthe organisation of the professionals’(trained nurses’) work activities varies indifferent workplaces, the project con-cluded that it is possible to build profes-sion oriented systems.6 This requires,however, that the system is based on anunderstanding of the basic nature of theprofession. And in order to be useful, anapplication has to be tailored for specific


work situations. The project came to theconclusion that computer applicationsdepend on the organisational and physi-cal design of the use context.

Even with its focus on use, the appli-cation perspective is centred aroundcomputers. The future use situation is thebasis for design. Hence, expertise fromboth the application domain and infor-mation systems development is neededin system development projects. Mutuallearning is essential; both users and de-signers need knowledge about each otherin order to communicate (Bjerknes et al.1985). The activities labelled ‘mutuallearning’ resemble activities later de-scribed as cooperative prototyping andparticipatory design (Bjerknes & Brat-teteig 1987a, 1987b, 1987c, 1988b).

The project was limited as to the sizeof the system development effort. Thepilot system could have been more use-ful if integrated with other computer sys-tems in the hospital. This raised the ques-tion of how local and situated it makessense to be. A focus on local needs en-sures an awareness of particular local in-terests. However, sometimes a local unitwill benefit from improved communica-tion and coordination with other units.Relations between work groups cannotbe properly catered for from an applica-tion perspective.

The application perspective is a ‘one-party perspective’. In spite of its basis inthe institutionalised conflict between la-bour and capital, the project was ratherharmony oriented as the one-party per-spective implicitly assumes harmonywithin the workers’ collective. Severalimportant conflicts in working life willbe ruled out as ‘uninteresting’ within thisperspective. By its emphasis on one per-spective the application perspective is

subject to the same criticism as the‘UTOPIA branch’ of projects, even if theFlorence project included several inter-est groups in the design decisions (Bjerk-nes & Bratteteig 1988a).

The project addressed the organisa-tion as a whole to a certain extent, by dis-cussing the totality of the informationsystems in the ward. The totality of anorganisation can be addressed in twoways, through a management perspec-tive or by emphasising that there are sev-eral differing perspectives depending onvarious stakeholders’ organisational po-sitions and roles. In the Collective Re-source approach, the notion of organisa-tion as a whole has been interpreted as amanagement’s perspective on the organ-isation. A computer system supportingthe organisation as a whole thus is a com-puter system supporting the capital sideof the contradiction between labour andcapital. This interpretation goes wellwith how the notion of organisation as awhole was described in system develop-ment approaches at that time.7

The Florence project experienced thesecond interpretation to be just as valid.A computer system for the organisationas a whole realises a compromise be-tween the interests and needs of a varietyof user groups. The goal is to balance theinterests because there is no such thing asa homogeneous user group, not evenwithin a single ward. The view that thereare different stakeholders in a systemsdevelopment process fits the CollectiveResource approach. The Collective Re-source approach predefines the stake-holder groups to be workers vs manage-ment. In real life, however, the differentinterests can involve conflicts within theworkers’ collective, or (groups of) work-


ers and management may share the sameinterests.

4.2. Integration and redesignThe FIRE project (Functional Integra-tion through REdesign) from 1992 to1994 aimed at developing principles,techniques, and guidelines for redesignof computer based systems so that thesystems could become functionally inte-grated for groups of users (Bjerknes etal. 1991, Braa et al. 1992a & 1992b).The objective was to explore how tobuild computer systems for an organisa-tion as a whole, given that organisationsinclude a variety of interest groups withpartly conflicting goals, and given that anumber of computer systems coexist, butdo not interact properly. The project wasconcerned with problems in large devel-opment projects and in maintenance ofcomputer systems—addressing some ofthe weaknesses of the application per-spective.

One of the basic assumptions in theFIRE project is that users have a stake inredesign as well as in design, thus the re-design process must be properly organ-ised to facilitate user participation (Braa,Bratteteig, and Øgrim 1994). Many usershave to relate to several applications inorder to carry out their work tasks, andthe applications often do not fit each oth-er or the work. Functional integration re-fers to that users should experience theapplications as an integrated whole. Re-design is an opportunity for functionalintegration, and the wish for integrationmay lead to redesign. Post-implementa-tion changes of computer based systemsmust be expected; thus it is necessary toorganise and plan for continuous rede-sign of the system (Bjerknes, Bratteteigand Espeseth 1991). Integration of com-

puter based systems often unveil con-flicts between different parts of the or-ganisation and between local and centralinterests. The basis for redesign is thework situation, but the overall organisa-tional objectives are given more weightthan any single work process.

Many of the FIRE project activitiesare not easily characterised as inheritorsof the Collective Resource approach,even if power and differences betweengroups of stakeholders are emphasised.The work of data shop stewards and thework environment agreements are dis-cussed with respect to redesign (Kaas-bøll & Øgrim 1994). FIRE’s focus on thetechnological infrastructure results inemphasis on common interests throughdialogue based strategies (Braa 1994).The aim at making practical compromis-es that can be accepted by everyone maylead to a position similar to the Socio-Technical approach, criticised by thetrade union projects for being manipula-tive (Ehn & Kyng 1987).

5. Historical Lines in the Scandinavian Research The projects described are so far allaimed at increasing the degree of partic-ipation and influence of users in the sys-tem development process. We summa-rise the discussions by drawing somehistorical lines that concern the politicaldebate in system development research(cf., Figure 1). The first part of this dis-cussion is concerned with where to startwhen doing the research; whether itshould be from a particular interestgroup or from an organisation seen as awhole. The second part of the discussionis concerned with the strategy for achiev-


ing democracy, by using existing institu-tions, i.e., structural regulations like leg-islation and working life organisations,or by acting in the system developmentsituation, emphasising knowledge andtechniques possessed by the actors in thesituation.

5.1. Conflict or harmony perspective as basis for a strategy The difference between considering theorganisation as a whole or as a particularinterest group in the system developmentprocess may characterise the differencebetween the Socio-Technical and theCollective Resource approach. The So-cio-Technical approach stresses on theone hand that employers and employeeshave a common interest in developinguseful computer systems, and has dis-cussed and developed techniques forstakeholder participation (Bjørn-An-dersen and Hedberg 1977, Bostrom andHeinen 1977a & 1977b, Markus 1983,Mumford 1983). The organisation as a

whole is addressed, and the emphasis ison balancing different interests.

The Collective Resource approach,on the other hand, emphasises the factthat there is an inherent conflict betweenemployers and employees, and that it isthe researchers’ duty to support theweaker party, i.e., the employees (Sand-berg 1975). Here the conflict refers to theantagonism between capital and labour.The conflict orientation emphasises fightand confrontation as a strategy forstrengthening the labour side in order tomake the fight between the sides moreeven. Followers of the Collective Re-source approach have criticised the So-cio-Technical approach for being harmo-ny oriented through its stress on balanceand consensus (Sandberg 1975, Ehn &Kyng 1987, Ehn 1989, Bansler 1989).The Socio-Technical approach has han-dled the contradiction between labourand capital by emphasising the depend-

FIGURE 1. Illustrates the dimensions used in analysing the research projects

The LO/NAFCooperation projects

Institution Situation

Organisa-tion as awhole

Particularinterestgroups

Cooperativedesign

Integrationand redesign

Florence

UTOPIA

NJMF,DUE,DEMOS


encies and common interests betweenthe two sides (the identity).

Interestingly enough, it is difficult tosee a difference between Socio-Techni-cal and Collective Resource approachesin practice. Knowledge about conflictsbetween labour and capital has been animportant basis for the organisation ofprojects in both traditions. In all projectscarried out within an organisational con-text a certain degree of cooperation withmanagement has been necessary—itseems to be very difficult to introducetechnology against a management’s will.It is difficult to act in accordance with a‘pure’ conflict-oriented view emphasis-ing only the struggle between the sides ofthe contradiction (the caricature being nocommon interests at all between employ-ees and employers). The interdependen-cies in a contradiction creates a mutualinterest in preserving the relationship—often resulting in creating common inter-ests at some level of abstraction. The useof negotiation models, in which workersand management are seen to have bothconflicting and common interests, bothbeing interested in achieving an accepta-ble solution, has been suggested by ad-vocates for the conflict oriented view,e.g., (Ehn and Sandberg 1979). A moder-ate emphasis on identity can be found intechniques like participative design (Em-ery 1993), democratic dialogue (Gustav-sen 1992), and search conference (Påls-haugen 1986) aimed at giving all stake-holders an opportunity to have a say andthrough this process create a commonunderstanding.

The Collective Resource approach isan anti-thesis to management friendlyapproaches by assuming that computersystems built for the organisation as awhole support an economic oriented

management perspective. Managementfriendly approaches support manage-ment, whereas the Collective Resourceapproach supports the workers. At thispoint some will be tempted to jump to asynthesis consisting of a balanced view,the perfect mix of conflict and harmony.We hold the view, however, that the har-mony-conflict axis simply is not a goodway to handle the contradiction betweenlabour and capital. The axis is based onthe assumption that labour equals em-ployees—represented by trade unions—instead of the more general labour. Asthe capital side is seen as equal to themanagement many aspects and levels ofcapitalistic influence are not addressed atall, e.g., ownership of information. Im-portant aspects of working life, e.g., dif-ferent employment contracts (full time,part time, temporised) and qualifications(skilled, unskilled) are left out when thelabour side equals organised workers. Itis also important to notice that when theworker side of the contradiction alonedefines the area of discussion, the (cur-rent) division of work is taken for grant-ed. This makes the labour side vulnera-ble to all sorts of actions from the capitalside, e.g., radical organisational changeslike business process reengineering orthe conflict between employed and un-employed (cf., Section 7).

5.2. Political or ethical roads to democracy The arena for achieving democracy canbe discussed along the distinction be-tween established institutions and situat-ed actions. The early projects used insti-tutions as means to develop and introdu-ce stronger institutional regulations inorder to achieve and secure democracy.At the same time, the active use of insti-


tutions strengthened the position of thoseinstitutions. The early projects contribut-ed to laws and agreements that (still) reg-ulate the introduction and use of comput-ers in working life. The LO-NAF Coop-eration projects achieved to get workersrepresented in board of directors(Thorsrud et al. 1964), the early trade un-ion projects developed a model for nego-tiations between workers and manage-ment to ensure a democratic negotiationprocess (Ehn & Sandberg 1979).

When the focus of the projects shift-ed from working life in general to specif-ic workplaces, the arena for system de-velopment—and democracy—shiftedfrom structural institutions to actions inparticular situations. Now, the effortswere concerned with how the (individu-al) system developer should act in a par-ticular setting. The objective still was toensure workplace democracy and to in-crease the possibilities for a weak groupto have influence. Design-by-doing andmutual learning are examples of ap-proaches that fit this perspective.

All the projects in the 70’s had an ex-plicit political bias in wanting to changethe preconditions for system develop-ment. The system developers played theemancipator role. In addition to structur-al regulations for controlling resourcesand rights to influence and participate,the workers were given power throughdevelopment of alternative knowledge.The alternative technological solutionswere conceived to be liberating. Fromthe middle 80’s, the quest for democracywas left to the individual system devel-oper, the creator of the liberating tech-nology. The responsibility of a profes-sional system developer changed to-wards being a facilitator of a morally—and legally—‘correct’ system develop-

ment process. The shift from emancipa-tion to professionalism has been support-ed by numerous suggestions to profes-sionalise systems development (e.g.,(Andersen et al. 1986, Dahlbom &Mathiassen 1994)), and an increased in-terest in professional ethical rules, e.g.,ACM code of ethics (ACM 1993b). Thesnag here is that the individual systemdeveloper should undertake a rather im-pressive personal responsibility for thesystems s/he is developing, without aprofessional organisation to supportthem when running into problems orconflicts (unlike, e.g., physicians ortrained nurses).

We interpret this as a shift from thepolitical to the ethical system developer.The political system developer is anemancipator, carrying out an action pro-gramme to give the weak parties knowl-edge they can use to increase their pow-er. The emancipator uses and strengthensexisting institutions as means to achieveworking life democracy. The ethical sys-tem developer is mainly responsible to-wards their own individual ethical co-dex—which might happen to be politi-cal. Ethical individuals act morally in theparticular work situations in which theyfind themselves, promoting workplacedemocracy through engagement in sys-tem development situations. We see ahistorical development from focusing onpolitics and organisations as a whole (theLO-NAF Cooperation projects), to par-ticular interest groups and politics(NJMF, DUE, DEMOS, UTOPIA),through a focus on particular interestgroups and ethics (Florence, Coopera-tive design), to a focus on the ethics andorganisation as a whole (FIRE). The de-velopment is illustrated in figure one,starting at the upper left square, proceed-


ing through the lower left, the lowerright, and the upper right squares.

6. Arenas for Participation and DemocracyThe Scandinavian system developmentresearch projects describe several waysto strive for democracy. The projects de-scribed in this article give examples offour levels of influence: (1) work situa-tion, (2) workplace, (3) inter-organisa-tional relations, and (4) working life. Allfour levels of technological influence re-quire different strategies and means forinfluence. This section summarises thehistorical account with a discussion ofstrategies and means used at each level.

6.1. The work situation levelAt this level the use of technology de-pends on the nature of the work tasks.Computer technology is used as instru-ments and communication media atwork.

The computer technology to be influ-enced is computer applications: off-the-shelf products, tailored commercial ap-plications, or in-house developed appli-cations.

Employees can achieve influence byparticipating in development projects, orby selecting applications. Current organ-isation of work is taken for granted, andthe influence is concerned with improv-ing the work situation. Means of influ-ence are project management and tech-niques for user participation in the con-crete system design processes. The influ-ence on this level increases as user-driven system development projects arebecoming more common (Clark 1992).Florence and the Cooperative design ac-

tivities have contributed to the means forinfluence in this category, as have NJMF,DUE, and DEMOS.

6.2. The workplace or organisational levelAt this level the use of technology willdepend on how different activities arecoordinated and integrated in the organi-sation. The use is argued for with refer-ence to an overall organisational goal.

Computer technology at this level in-cludes the technological information in-frastructure, realised as, e.g., centralisedmainframe systems, common systems,or networks; it also includes choices ofstandards and basic software. The infra-structure is a frame for possible futureapplications, and a need for particularapplications may have impact on thechoice of infrastructure.

In order to ensure the right of allworkers to influence their work situationand to achieve workplace democracy, itis necessary to address the whole organ-isation. The users’ influence on the tech-nology may therefore be more indirect atthis level; they may just as well try to in-fluence overall organisational goals asthe chosen information technological in-frastructure. Changes in organisationalstructures will be based on the organisa-tional goals. Influencing the infrastruc-ture is relevant to the extent that the tech-nological infrastructure may support orhinder the development of desirable ap-plications, i.e., alignment of infrastruc-ture with business goals. The Socio-Technical approach aim at influencingthis organisational level, cf., (Hirschhe-im & Klein 1994), as does FIRE. Busi-ness Process Reengineering (BPR) alsoaddresses this level with the objective toneglect the current work organisation


(Hammer 1990, Hammer & Champy1993).

6.3. The inter-organisational levelAt this level, the use of technology aimsat facilitating the relationship betweenan organisation and its environment—potential business partners, competitors,customers, the market. In order to designa technological infrastructure that sup-ports both the organisation internally andits relation to the environment, it is nec-essary to understand how changes in theenvironment can and will affect the in-ternal structure of the organisation.8

We distinguish between two differentinter-organisational relations, a) busi-ness relations and b) strategic relations. a. Business relations are regulated by

contracts, like the relation between asubcontractor and a contractor. Thiskind of relation can be supported bynetworks and standards, like Elec-tronic Document Interchange (EDI).Technological influence may insome situations be restricted toselecting a subset of the EDI stand-ard that will be used in the businessrelation.

b. The second inter-organisational rela-tion, the strategic one, is found whenseveral organisations have a com-mon, strategic interest in influencingsomething or someone. The subjectof interest may be related to compu-ter technology. The means of influ-ence can include lobbying orforming of inter-organisationalgroups, e.g., international usergroups like DECUS and ITU’sstandardisation work groups. How-ever, more local level arrangementsfit here as well, e.g., pressure groups

composed of representatives fromdifferent use organisations usingproducts from the same softwarevendor, e.g., a software house sellingsoftware to local authorities (Braa1994). The UTOPIA project fits inhere. The Nordic Union of graphicalworkers had a strategic interest indeveloping alternative knowledgeand technology that could strengthenthe position of their members. Thiswas also the case in the Florenceproject.

The importance of the inter-organisational level has increasedduring the decades, and we believethat it will be even more importantfor future system developers as net-work technology becomes wide-spread. We expect that the two formsof inter-organisational relations dis-cussed above will merge. The ‘vir-tual organisation’, a networkconsisting of small and medium-sized enterprises that cooperate forimproving their position on themarket9 have aspects that are ori-ented to both business and strategicalliances. Current Socio-Technicalapproaches, e.g., (Gustavsen 1992)encourage building and maintainingnetworks between organisations inorder to exchange and developknowledge and common businessstrategies, seeking to integrate thetwo kinds of inter-organisationalrelations.

6.4. The social or working life level This level comprises legal laws and reg-ulations for the society, including theworking life. The means for influence isin the legislation and social institutions.


Important examples are The Worker Pro-tection and Working Environment Act(AML 1977) and laws to protect the pri-vacy of citizens with accompanying in-stitutions undertaking the control andfulfilment of the laws. Non-governmen-tal institutions at this level are society-wide associations or multi-national com-panies.

Use of technology at this level in-cludes societal infrastructures like roads,railways, telephones, mass media—andelectronic networks. Computer technolo-gy at this level is public accessible soft-ware or information, e.g., games and in-formation from bulletin boards via theInternet. The integration of computerswith telephones, broadcasting, and pub-lishing makes the every-day life of a cit-izen more dependent of technology.

At this level the information and soft-ware distributed by the technology is justas important (and a more realistic) arenafor influence as the technology itself. Anillustration of this is the current debate inNorway about how to control the Inter-net with respect to prohibiting distribu-tion of pornographic material.10 A tradi-tional institution for controlling thiswould be a legally responsible editor-in-chief for every bulletin board. However,an editor-in-chief cannot possibly con-trol every message on the net that can bereached through her/his bulletin board(Hannemyr 1994). The debate illustratesthat new institutions may be needed inorder to control and influence currenttechnology.

The LO-NAF Cooperation projectsand the first trade union projects (NJMF,DUE, DEMOS) can be seen as rathersuccessful attempts also to address thislevel of influence.

The lesson to learn from history is thattechniques aimed at user participation insystem design should be accompaniedby means and strategies aimed at otherlevels of influence. The LO-NAF Coop-eration projects and the NJMF projectare good examples. They both empha-sised local action and global strategy,and their success lay in the way the twolevels of influence were combined. Glo-bal strategies should provide a frame-work for local action, local actionsshould be exemplars informing andgrounding the global strategy.11 Localaction can benefit from many years ofdevelopment and experiments with userparticipation techniques. In our view theone-party perspective is too limited,therefore the boundaries of the localeshould include more than one particularinterest group. We suggest more empha-sis on the organisational level than in theearly projects, addressing not only localand societal levels (e.g., local and centraltrade union), but also trying to handle is-sues across groups and organisationalboundaries.

7. The Conditions for User Participation are ChangingThe environment for systems develop-ment is changing. Computer technologyis developing, integrating different kindsof technology, and the support for com-munication and information processingis becoming more important. The focalpoint of organisational development isthe customer rather than the employee.The competition on the market has in-creased, and today the market is global.Computer technology is used for a varie-ty of work and leisure activities—not


mainly for production. Information tech-nology contributes to changing the rela-tions between work, leisure, and educa-tion. Technological infrastructures serv-ing both professional and customer mar-kets change the division of workbetween employees and customers (tele-shopping etc). We are going from a soci-ety where labour is a critical resource toa society where information and knowl-edge are conceived to be critical, e.g.,(Fortune 1994). At the same time work-ers and unions have lost their influencein society compared with the 70’s due tothe global economy and the increasingrate of unemployment. We expect thatthe differences between ‘informationrich’ and ‘information poor’ people, or-ganisations, and societies will grow.

Significant changes for system de-velopment that have an impact on theScandinavian tradition can be found inthe recent organisational development,the changing role of unions and techno-logical changes.

7.1. Organisational developmentIn general, working life is subject to in-creased demands for productivity. Morework is left to the client (like tele-shop-ping, banking). The high demands resultin less resources for organisational slackthus organisation and coordination ofwork tasks become even more important.

This has resulted in radical changesin the way work is organised. Some ofthe new opportunities are connected tothe introduction of telecommunication.The European Union expects and pro-motes a rapid growth in ‘virtual organi-sations’, i.e., organisations that consist of(parts of) well established organisationsthat may exist temporarily. The numberof teleworkers is increasing, due to the

fact that telecommunications can con-nect employees to work-related informa-tion through portable computers, mo-dems, and networks. Employees maywork at home, a long way from the em-ployer’s headquarters, and they may reg-ulate their working hours according totheir own wishes. Technology is beingused to manage the distributed work or-ganisation.

Change processes like system devel-opment normally aim at a limited effectwhen it comes to organisational changes.More radical changes like business proc-ess reengineering are aimed at reducingmanagement staff and giving more re-sponsibility, freedom, and challenges tothe individual employee as this enhancesthe flexibility and competitiveness of theorganisation—even though workers maylose their jobs during a BPR process.

Change processes are full of con-flicts, and the use of power is often nec-essary to introduce the required changes,in particular when the change is radical.Some of the organisational changes wecan expect in the future will probably becharacterised by coercion and use ofpower. The climate for organisationalchanges is not as cooperative and harmo-nious as it was in the 70’s, thus one of thepremises for the Collective Resource ap-proach has changed. The Collective Re-source approach will have to adapt to or-ganisational changes that take place inhostile and coercive environments.

7.2. The changing role of trade unionsThe role of trade unions as social actorspromoting working life democracy is amajor point in the debate on the ‘exportof Scandinavian participatory tech-niques’ to non-unionised cultures, e.g.,the US, cf., e.g., (Kraft & Bansler 1992,


Bansler & Kraft 1994, Kyng 1994,Greenbaum 1993). The American tradi-tion of democracy is based on the en-gagement of individuals in social move-ments (feminists, ecologists etc) whichpractice democracy in a limited scale—some of them opposing trade unions as apart of the existing power structure. TheEuropean tradition emphasises formalstructures giving democratic rights tocitizens, e.g., trade unions. Trade unionsare created to address the institutional-ised contradiction between labour andcapital, thus they can participate as polit-ical actors in the public debate. They canbe pressure groups on both organisation-al and inter-organisational levels. But thetrade unions are not as powerful as theyused to be. The patterns of organisationchange in Scandinavia, and unemploy-ment weakens the position of the tradeunions both locally and centrally. Thehigh unemployment rate may result inmore confrontations between differenttrade unions, and between differentgroups of workers—even if some tradeunions unite to gain strength. The tradeunions constitute an inter-organisationalnetwork, but the network has become aninstitution that only addresses the contra-diction between the employees and themanagement/owners—as opposed to thecontradiction between labour and capi-tal. The trade unions have difficulties inrelating to unemployed and temporaryworkers as well as conflicts betweengroups of workers or between organisa-tional units, cf., e.g., (Bos et al. 1994).

Thus it is no longer obvious that tradeunions are the most strategic institutionsthrough which democracy can beachieved. The changing role of the tradeunions may lead to a need for applying a

different set of strategies and institutionsfor achieving democracy.

7.3. Technological changesTechnology itself may affect the possi-bility for influence at different levels.Computer networks connect people fromdifferent departments within organisa-tions, between organisations, and be-tween societies and countries, acrosswell-established borders, and thus givenew opportunities to seek partners andstrategic alliances. The technology con-stitutes an infrastructure that can be usedby individuals or groups to make achange. Company-wide (electronic) bul-letin boards can be used as means forchanging management decisions (Bish-op 1994). A news group on the Internetcan force a computer manufacturer likeIntel to admit a serious error in one of itsprocessors, a contrast to Intel’s currentpractice of only admitting errors to cus-tomers that do not inform anyone (Lev-eraas 1995). Network technology couldbe used by trade unions to make connec-tions across departmental, organisation-al, and national borders, to address andcounter-challenge the capitalistic moveto higher levels of influence (Leonardsen1994).

Social networks is transformed intotechnical ones, and the technical net-works give new opportunities for creat-ing social networks. Still, the technolog-ical infrastructure is a tool for those whocontrol it, and a structural institution forthose who do not.


8. User Participation and Democracy?The Collective Resource approach isbased on the assumption that there is aconnection between a democratic proc-ess and a democratic result. The demo-cratic result should be a workplace—anda working life—in which everybody hasa voice and in which all voices are heardand have an impact. A democratic proc-ess is a process in which everybody has avoice and in which all voices are heardand have an impact. This definition rulesout computer solutions that favour oneinterest group at the expense of others,like the UTOPIA project, even if theprocess can be characterised as demo-cratic because both graphical workersand the management of the newspapershave a say. The definition also points tothe difficulty of being democratic whenbeing very local, like the Florenceproject because the local process delim-its the number of groups that have thechance to be heard.

Sometimes a democratic result re-quires a non-democratic process. Oneexample is arrangements for admittingmore women into male dominated areas,in which quotas and special arrange-ments may seem unfair to an individualmale not offered a job or position, butwhich in the long run will make workinglife more democratic. A truly democraticprocess can be conflicting and may haveto challenge the present perspectives andtraditions. The basic assumption in thefirst trade union projects was that theworld is not democratic, and that a dem-ocratic process will confirm and evenstrengthen the differences between thosewith power and those without. The dem-ocratic processes at a local level were

linked to global strategies aiming at ademocratic result at the central unionlevel. In the locally oriented projects, thelink between the local democratic proc-ess and some global democratic resultdisappeared. A computer systems itselfcannot be a means for emancipation; if itis used in a context in which its usershave influence, it may support their pow-er.

The challenge for future research isto contribute to democracy in a changingworking life and workplaces. To achievethis it is not obvious that user participa-tion in system development activities is ameans or the only means. User participa-tion in coercive change processes mightnot be a contribution to democracy. Thechange of power structures in societyduring the last decades is an importantchallenge for system development re-search which cannot be dealt with with-out discussing the political dimension.All the four levels of influence: (1) worksituation, (2) workplace, (3) inter-organ-isational relations, and (4) working lifeneed to be addressed and put into action.Further discussion and experiments onother kinds of institutions and local ac-tions different from the ones we knowfrom the Collective Resource approachare necessary to reintroduce the demo-cratic dimension in system developmentresearch.

Notes1The Information Systems Research seminar inScandinavia (IRIS) is an annual seminar forresearchers in system development in Scandinavia.The 16th IRIS was held in Denmark in 1993.2Overviews are given in, e.g., (Clement & Van denBesselar 1993) and can be found in (Aarhus 1975,


Briefs et al. 1983, Bjerknes et al. 1987, ACM1993a).3Marx formulated the notion of contradiction, cf.also (Braverman 1974). In dialectical thinking acontradiction is a relation between two mutuallydependent sides. A contradiction is characterisedby having both ‘identity’ and ‘struggle’. The ‘iden-tity’ between the sides explains what makes therelation a whole. The ‘struggle’ or conflictbetween the sides threatens to tear the relationshipapart. The use of dialectics in systems developmentis discussed in, e.g., (Bjerknes 1992).4Other research efforts have been carried out by theUTOPIAn successors as well, e.g., production ofcomputer support for cooperative work, the EuroC-ODE project (cf., e.g., (Grønbæk et al. 1993)) andcooperative design in an organisational setting: theAT project (ArbejdsTilsynet) (Bødker et al. 1993,Bødker 1994). We do not discuss these projects indepth in this article because our aim is to makeclear how the tool and the design-by-doingapproach was followed up.5Two regional, public hospitals were involved inthe project through an asthma/allergy ward for chil-dren and a cardiological ward.6Florence was closely linked to the Nordic researchprogramme SYDPOL (SYstem Development envi-ronment and Profession Oriented Languages:1982-1988), cf., (Kaasbøll 1983).7According to Iivari (1991) most system develop-ment approaches still basically have an economicalperspective, even if more user-oriented attitudeshave been incorporated.8In some decentralised and distributed organisa-tions different departments act so independentlythat their interrelation has some of the characteris-tics of the inter-organisational level. We neverthe-less find the distinction between the organisationaland the inter-organisational level useful.9As advocated in, e.g., (Bangemann et al. 1994).10Pursuant to Norwegian legislation distribution ofpornographic material is prohibited.11This corresponds with a proposal for influence ina local government by Hales & O’Hara (1993).12Industry based trade unions lose members, pro-fessional and academic trade unions get members;in total a small growth of the number of peopleorganised in trade unions (Statistisk årbok 1994).The Collective Resource approach concerns theindustry based trade unions, just as the technologyrelated legislation in Norway.

AcknowledgementsWe have had discussions with many peo-ple while writing this article. An earlierversion of the article was presented atIRIS’94 where Olav Bertelsen, PerFlensburg, Bai Guohua, Ann Hägerfors,Janne Ropponen, and Erik Stoltermanprovided useful comments. Anonymousreviewers of PDC’94 and SJIS helpedclarifying the main arguments. We par-ticularly want to thank Ivan Aaen, JørgenBansler, Joan Greenbaum, Mike Hales,and Frieder Nake for constructive andthorough comments. The critique anddiscussions with Leikny Øgrim, KristinBraa, Jens Kaasbøll, and Annita Fjukhave been engaging and inspiring, just asthe comments from Susanne Bødker andher colleagues in Aarhus. Sara Selmarkhelped us improve the language.

ReferencesAarhus (1975): The Aarhus conference Janu-

ary 1975. Forms of working in systemdevelopment (Aarhus-konferencen januar1975. Arbejdsformer i systemudvikling)DAIMI PB-46, University of Aarhus

ACM (1993a): Communications of the ACM:Special Issue on Participatory Design vol36 no 4 (6) June 1993

ACM (1993b): ACM Code of Ethics and Pro-fessional Conduct, Communications of theACM vol 36, no 2 Feb. 1993, pp. 98-105

AML (1977): Law of Workers’ Protectionand Working Environment (Lov om arbei-dervern og arbeidsmiljø: Arbeidsmiljø-loven) Oslo, February 4.

Andersen, N.E., Kensing, F., Lassen, M.,Lundin, J., Mathiassen, L., Munk-Mad-sen, A., and Sørgaard, P. (1986): Profes-sional System Development (Professionel


Systemudvikling), Teknisk Forlag,Copenhagen

Bangemann, M. et al. (1994): Europe and theglobal information society, Recommenda-tions to the European Council, Brussels

Bansler, J. (1989): Systems DevelopmentResearch in Scandinavia: Three theoreti-cal schools, Scandinavian Journal ofInformation Systems vol 1, Aug. 1989, pp.3-20

Bansler, J. and Kraft, P. (1994): Privilege andInvisibility in the New York Order: Areply to Kyng, in Scandinavian Journal ofInformation Systems vol 6 no 1, April1994, pp. 97-106

Bishop, L. (1994): "Engaged Effort" andLocal Area Networks, in Clement, A.,Kolm, P., and Wagner, I. (eds): NetWORK-ing: Conneting Workers In and BetweenOrganizations IFIP Transactions A-38,North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 35-44

Bjerknes, G. (1992): Dialectical Reflection inInformation Systems Development, inScandinavian Journal of Information Sys-tems vol 4, August 1992, pp. 55-78

Bjerknes, G. and Bratteteig, T. (1984): TheApplication Perspective—An Other Wayof Conceiving Edp-based Systems andSystems Development, in Sääksjärvi, M.(ed): Report of the Seventh ScandinavianResearch Seminar on Systemeering Hel-sinki School of Economics, Studies B-75,Helsinki, pp. 204-225

Bjerknes, G. and Bratteteig, T. (1987a):Implementing an idea—cooperation andconstruction in the Florence Project (Åimplementere en idé—samarbeid og kon-struksjon i Florence-prosjektet) FlorenceReport no 3, Department of Informatics,University of Oslo

Bjerknes, G. and Bratteteig, T. (1987b): Per-spectives on description tools and tech-niques in system development, Dochertyet al, (eds): System Design for HumanDevelopment and Productivity: Participa-tion and Beyond North-Holland, Amster-dam, pp. 319-330

Bjerknes, G. and Bratteteig, T. (1987c): Flor-ence in Wonderland, in Bjerknes, G., Ehn,P., and Kyng, M. (eds): Computers andDemocracy—a Scandinavian ChallengeAvebury, Aldershot, pp. 279-295

Bjerknes, G. and Bratteteig, T. (1988a): Thememoirs of two survivors—or evaluationof a computer system for cooperativework, Proceedings for The Second Con-ference on Computer Supported Coopera-tive Work ACM, 26-28 Sept. 1988, Port-land, Oregon, pp. 167-177

Bjerknes, G. and Bratteteig, T. (1988b): Com-puters—Utensils or Epaulets? The Appli-cation Perspective Revisited AI and Soci-ety vol 2 no 3, pp. 258-266

Bjerknes, G., Bratteteig, T., Braa, K., Kautz,K, Kaasbøll, J., and Øgrim, L. (1991):Project FIRE: Functional Integrationthrough REdesign FIRE Report no 1,Research Report no 154, Department ofInformatics, University of Oslo

Bjerknes, G., Bratteteig, T., and Espeseth, T.(1991): Evolution of finished systems:The dilemma of enhancement, Scandina-vian Journal of Information Systems vol 3,Aug. 1991, pp. 25-45

Bjerknes, G., Bratteteig, T., Kaasbøll, J.,Sannes I., and Sinding-Larsen, H. (1985):Mutual Learning (Gjensidig læring) Flor-ence Report no 1, Department of Infor-matics, University of Oslo

Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., and Kyng, M. (eds)(1987): Computers and Democracy—aScandinavian Challenge Avebury, Alder-shot

Bjørn-Andersen, N. and Hedberg, B. (1977):Designing Information Systems in anOrganizational Perspective, Studies in theManagement Sciences Prescriptive Mod-els of Organizations vol 5, 1977, pp. 125-142

Bos, T., de Rue, E., and Sips, C. (1994): Net-work Technology and OrganizationalControl: A Case Study of Decision Mak-ing and Industrial Relations in a PrivatizedPublic Enterprise, in Clement, A., Kolm,P., and Wagner, I. (eds): NetWORKing:


Connecting Workers In and BetweenOrganizations IFIP Transactions A-38,North-Holland, Amsterdam

Bostrom, R. and Heinen, S. (1977a): MISProblems and Failures: A Socio-TechnicalPerspective, Part I: The Causes MIS Quar-terly September 1977, pp. 17-31

Bostrom, R. and Heinen, S. (1977b): MISProblems and Failures: A Socio-TechnicalPerspective, Part II: The Application ofSocio-Technical Theory, MIS QuarterlyDecember 1977, pp. 11-20

Braa, K. (1994): Priority Workshops as aSpringboard for Participatory Design inRedesign Activities, in Kerola, P. et al.(eds): Precedings of the 17th Informationsystems Research seminar In Scandinavia,University of Oulu, pp. 875-889

Braa, K., Bratteteig, T., Kaasbøll, J., andØgrim L. (1992a): ENtry to the FIREproject FIRE Report no 2, ResearchReport no 168, Department of Informat-ics, University of Oslo

Braa, K., Bratteteig, T., Kaasbøll, J., Mørch,A., Smørdal, O., and Øgrim, L. (1992b):Final Report from the Pilot Project FIREReport no 9, Research Report no 177,Department of Informatics, University ofOslo

Braa, K., Bratteteig, T., and Øgrim, L. (1994):Organising the redesign process in systemdevelopment, Proceedings of the Interna-tional Conference on Information SystemsDevelopment, Slovenia, September 1994

Braverman, H. (1974): Labor and MonopolyCapital, Monthly Review Press, NewYork

Briefs, U., Ciborra, C., and Schneider, L.(eds) (1983): Systems Design For, With,and By the Users North-Holland, Amster-dam

Bødker, S. (1994): Creating conditions forparticipation: Conflicts and resources insystems design, in Trigg, R. et al. (eds):Proceedings of the Participatory DesignConference PDC’94, Chapel Hill, NorthCarolina, 27-28 Oct. 1994, CPSR andACM

Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Kammersgaard, J., Kyng,M., and Sundblad, Y. (1987): A UTO-PIAN Experience: On Design of PowerfulComputer-Based Tools for Skilled Graph-ical Workers, in Bjerknes et al, (1987), pp.251-278

Bødker, S. and Grønbæk, K. (1991): Designin Action: From Prototyping by Demon-stration to Cooperative Prototyping, inGreenbaum and Kyng (1991), pp. 197-218

Bødker, S. , Christiansen, E., Ehn, P.,Markussen, R., Mogensen, P., and Trigg,R. (1993): The AT-Project: practicalresearch in cooperative design, DAIMIPB 454, Aarhus University

Clark, T. (1992): Corporate Systems Man-agement: An Overview and Research Per-spective, Communications of the ACM vol35 no 2, pp. 61-75

Clement, A. and P. Van den Besselar (1993):A Retrospective Look at PD Projects,Communications of the ACM vol 36 no 4

Cockburn, C. (1983): Brothers. Male Domi-nance and Technological Change PlutoPress, London

Dahlbom, B. and Mathiassen, L. (1994): AScandinavian View on the ACM’s Code ofEthics, ACM Computers and Society vol24 no 2, (June 1994), pp. 14-20

DEMOS Project Group (1979): The DemosProject: A Presentation, in Sandberg(1979), pp. 108-121

Dilschmann, A. and Ehn, P. (1984): The bor-derland (Gränslandet) Utopia Report no11, Swedish Center for Working Life,Stockholm

DUE Project Group (1978): Democracy,Development, and EDP (Demokrati,Udvikling og Edb) DUE Report no. 2,DAIMI, University of Aarhus

DUE Project Group (1979): Project DUE:Democracy, Development, and EDP, inSandberg (1979), pp. 122-130

Ehn, P. (1989): Work-Oriented Design ofComputer Artifacts Lawrence ErlbaumAss., Hillsdale, New Jersey


Ehn, P. and Kyng, M. (1984): A Tool perspec-tive on Design of Interactive ComputerSupport for Skilled Workers, in Sääksjärvi(ed): Report of the Seventh ScandinavianResearch Seminar on Systemeering Hel-sinki School of Economics, Studies B-74,Helsinki, pp. 211-242

Ehn, P. and Kyng, M. (1987): The collectiveresource approach to system design, inBjerknes et al, (1987), pp. 17-57

Ehn, P. and Sandberg, Å. (1979): Manage-ment Control and Wage Earners’ Power(Företagsstyrning och Löntagarmakt)Prisma, Falköping

Emery, M. (ed) (1993): Participative Designfor Participative Democracy, Centre forContinuing Education, AustralianNational University

Fortune (1994): Your Company’s Most Valu-able Asset: Intellectual Capital, coverstory by T.A. Stewart, Fortune, Oct. 3,1994, pp. 28-33

Greenbaum, J. (1993): A Design of One’Own: Towards Participatory Design in theUnited States, in Schuler and Namioka(1993), pp. 27-37

Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (eds.) (1991):Design at Work: Cooperative Design ofComputer Systems Lawrence ErlbaumAss., Hillsdale, New Jersey

Grønbæk, K. (1991): Prototyping and ActiveUser Involvement in System Development:Towards a Cooperative PrototypingApproach PhD.Thesis, DAIMI, Univer-sity of Aarhus

Grønbæk, K., Kyng, M., and Prebensen, M.(1993): CSCW Challenges: Cooperativedesign in engineeing projects, in Commu-nications of the ACM vol 36 no 6, pp. 67-77

Gunnarson, E. and Lodin, E. (1983): The per-forator typists’ working conditions (Per-foratörernas arbetssituation) UtopiaReport no. 7, Swedish Center for WorkingLife, Stockholm

Gustavsen, B. (1986): Sociology as Action:On the Construction of Alternative Reali-ties Unpublished manuscript

Gustavsen, B. (1992): Dialogue and Devel-opment Arbetslivscentrum & Van Gor-cum, Assen/Maastricht

Hales, M. and O’Hara, P. (1993): Strengthsand Weaknesses of Participation: Learn-ing by Doing in Local Government, inGreen et al, (eds): Gendered by Design?Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 153-172

Hammer, M. (1990): Reengineering Work:Don’t Automate, Obliterate, in HarvardBusiness Review, July-August 1990, pp.104-112

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993): Reengi-neering the Corporation Harper CollinsPubl., New York

Hannemyr, G. (1994): Editor-in-ChiefResponsibility of Bulletin Boards (Redak-tøransvar for BBSer) feature article in theAftenposten July 12. 1994

Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H. (1994): Realiz-ing Emancipatory Principles in Informa-tion Systems Development: The Case forETHICS, MIS Quarterly (March 1994),pp. 83-109

Iivari, J. (1991): A paradigmatic analysis ofcontemporary schools of IS development,European Journal of Information Systems,Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 249-272

Iivari, J. and Hirschheim, R. (1992): Paradig-matic analysis of four emerging IS devel-opment approaches, in Proceedings of the3rd Australian Conference on InformationSystems, Wollongong (referred to in Kara-sti 1994)

Kaasbøll, J. (1983): The Research Pro-gramme SYDPOL: SYstem Developmentenvironment and Profession OrientedLanguages (in Scandinavian), NordforskPublikationnserie 1983:2, Department ofInformatics, University of Oslo

Kaasbøll, J. and Øgrim, L. (1994): Super-Users: Hackers, Management Hostages,or Working Class Heroes? A study of userinfluence on redesign in distributed organ-izations, FIRE Report no 15, in Kerola, P.et al. (eds): Precedings of the 17th Infor-mation systems Research seminar In


Scandinavia, University of Oulu, pp. 784-798

Karasti, H. (1994): What’s different in genderoriented ISD? Identifying gender orientedsystems development approach. In Adamand Owen (eds): Breaking Old Bounda-ries: Building New Forms, Proceedings ofthe 5th International Conference onWomen, Work and Computerization, Man-chester, July 2-5 1994, pp. 685-698

Knudsen, T. (1993): The ScandinavianApproaches: Theories in Use, of Use andOrganization of Interdisciplinarity, inBansler, J. et al. (eds): Proceedings of the16th IRIS, DIKU Report no. 93/16, Uni-versity of Copenhagen, pp. 29-38

Kraft, P. and Bansler, J. (1992): The Collec-tive Resource Approach: The Scandina-vian Experience, in Müller, M., Kuhn, S.,and Meskill, J.A. (eds.): PDC’92: Pro-ceedings of the Participatory Design Con-ference Nov. 6-7. 1992, MIT, CambridgeMA US, pp. 127-135 (also published inslightly modified version in ScandinavianJournal of Information Systems vol 6 no 1,April 1994, pp. 71-84)

Kyng, M. (1991): Designing for cooperation,Communications of the ACM vol vol 34 no12

Kyng, M. (1994): Collective ResourcesMeets Puritanism, Scandinavian Journalof Information Systems vol 6 no 1, April1994, pp. 85-96

Kyng, M. and Mathiassen, L. (1979): A "NewSystems Development": Trade Union andResearch Activities, in Sandberg (1979),pp. 54-74

Leonardsen, A. (1994): Conditions for thecollective in computer based networks(Kollektivets kår i databaserte nettverk),essay, Department of Informatics, Univer-sity of Oslo

Leveraas, P. (1994): Internet as a pressuregroup (Nettet som pressgruppe), Com-puterworld Norway, vol 13 no 2, p. 2

Markus, L. (1983): Power, Politics and MISImplementation, Communications of theACM vol 26 no 6, pp. 430-444

Mogensen, P. (1994): Challenging Prac-tice—an approach to Cooperative Analy-sis, PhD thesis, DAIMI PB-465, Univer-sity of Aarhus

Mumford, E. (1983): Designing Human Sys-tems Manchester Business School

Nygaard, K. (1979): The ‘Iron and MetalProject’: Trade Union Participation, inSandberg (1979), pp. 94-107

Nygaard, K. and Bergo, O.T. (1974): Plan-ning, Control, and Computing. Basic Bookfor the Trade Unions (Planlegging, Sty-ring og databehandling. Grunnbok forFagbevegelsen) Tiden Norsk Forlag, Oslo

Procter, R.N. and Williams, R.A. (1992):HCI: Whose Problem Is IT Anyway?, inLarson and Unger (eds): Engineering forHuman-Computer Interaction North-Hol-land, Amsterdam, pp. 385-396

Pålshaugen, Ø. (1986): Means of designing astarting conference, AI-dok.28/86, WorkResearch Institute, Oslo

Sandberg, Å. (1975): Harmony and ConflictPerspectives in System DevelopmentWork (Harmoni- och konfliktperspektiv isystemutvecklingsarbetet), in Aarhus(1975), pp. 237-265

Sandberg, Å. (ed.) (1979): Computers divid-ing man and Work Swedish Center forWorking Life, Demos Project Report no13, Utbildningsproduktion, Malmö

Sandberg, Å. (1984): Between alternativeproduction and industrial R&D (Mellanalternativ produktion och industriell FoU)Utopia Report no 16, Swedish Center forWorking Life, Stockholm

Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. (eds.) (1993):Participatory Design. Principles andPractices Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., Hills-dale, New Jersey

Statistisk årbok (1994): Statistical Yearbookfor 1994, Statistisk Sentralbyrå, Oslo

Sørensen, Aa. (1992): Action research aboutand in working life (Aktionsforskning omog i arbejdslivet), Tidsskrift for samfunns-forskning vol 33, pp. 213-230

Thorsrud, E. and Emery, F. (1970): Towards anew Company Organisation (Mot en ny


bedriftsorganisasjon), Universitetsfor-laget, Oslo

Thorsrud, E., Emery, F., and Trist, E. (1964):Industrial Democracy. Representation inthe board of directors? (Industrieltdemokrati; representasjon på styreplan ibedriften?), Universitetsforlaget, Oslo

UTOPIA Project Group (1981): Training,Technology, and Product from the Qualityof Work Perspective Utopia Report no 1,Swedish Center for Working Life, Stock-holm

UTOPIA Project Group (1985): An Alterna-tive in Text and Images Grafitti no 7,Swedish Center for Working Life, Stock-holm

user participation and democracy: a discussion of...

Documents