The Business, Education and Technology Journal

Volume 3, No. 2

Fall 2001

A publication of The School of Technology and Industry

Golden Gate University

The Business, Education and Technology Journal

1Business, Education and Technology Journal Fall 2001

Table of Contents

From the Editors .............................................................................................................................. 2Robert Fulkerth, Ed.D. and Constance Beutel, Ed.D.

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................ 4Constance Beutel Interviews Christine Crandell, President of New Business Strategies

Not Only a Vision, a Common Vision ......................................................................................... 7Sophia Bekelee, CEO of CBS International

Extending eBusiness to the Wireless World ..........................................................................10Chan Komagan, Consultant with Scient

Teaching Applied Business Forecasting Over the Internet ................................................14Thomas Bundt

Working Technology: Issues in the Design of Information Systems toSupport Work Practices ...............................................................................................................23

Arnold Chandler

About the JournalThe Business, Education and Technology Journal is apeer-reviewed publication of the school of Technol-ogy and Industry at Golden Gate University, San Fran-cisco, CA. The Journal is devoted to the study of therelationships among the disciplines of Business, Edu-cation and Technology. It aims to publish papers thatinvestigate commonalties, convergence, best practice,conceptual thinking and research findings in theseareas.

Manuscripts describing original research, analysis andapplication of research and theory, perspectives, de-velopment and application of programs in businessand educational settings are welcome for consider-ation.

Submission GuidelinesYour work should not be under consideration for pub-lication in other venues, and should be free of copy-right restrictions. You’ll agree that if the work issubsequently published in whole or in part, you’llcredit the BET Journal as the original source.

For further submission and copyright information,contact journal co-editor

Dr. Robert Fulkerth, Associate ProfessorSchool of Technology and IndustryGolden Gate University536 Mission StreetSan Francisco CA 94105415 442 [email protected]://internet.ggu.edu/~bfulkerth


From the EditorsWelcome to the Fall 2001 edition of the Business, Education and Technology Journal. The Journal publishesarticles on theoretical and practice-oriented topics impacting professionals in the disciplines of technology,business and education. This edition features an eclectic mix of articles, with a general focus on doing businessand education in a world mediated by electronic technologies.

In our Fall 2001 introduction, Co-Editor ConstanceBeutel interviews Christine Crandell, President of NewBusiness Strategies, a consulting firm with a forward-looking approach that aims to help progressive busi-nesses look both inward and to the future, as theyengage in strategic planning.

In “Not Only a Vision, a Common Vision,” SophiaBekelee, CEO of CBS International, a California-based IT company affiliated with SbCommunicationsNetwork plc in Ethiopia, discusses the status of elec-tronic technology development in various Africancountries, with an emphasis on the need for an orga-nized vision for technology development in Ethiopia.

Chan Komagan is a consultant with Scient who spe-cializes in wireless technologies. His expertise includesWAP, BlueTooth and mobile eBusiness. In “Extend-ing eBusiness to the Wireless World,” he provides read-ers with both a primer on wireless terminology, andan overview of technologies that are either here, orjust around the corner.

There is always interest in teaching a wider rangeof subjects in online settings. More diverse coursesand course types find their way online as people con-tinue to translate traditional teaching skills to onlinesettings. In “Teaching Applied Business ForecastingOver the Internet,” Thomas Bundt discusses a variety

of issues of interest to anyone considering mountinga financial/quantitative course online. While includ-ing a review of pedagogical and practical questions,he discusses at length the use of vendor-supplied re-sources and case studies in his course.

In “Working Technology: Issues in the Design ofInformation Systems to Support Work Practices,”Arnold Chandler reviews a wide range of theoreticaland applied material as he discusses consideration forthe design of effective information systems.

The editors thank Dr. Anne Carlisle, Contract Ad-ministrator for the School of Technology and Indus-try and adjunct faculty member at Golden GateUniversity, for her contributions and assistance in thepreparation of the Journal.

You can see the journal online at http://betj.ggu.edu. A call for papers is found elsewhere inthis edition.

Dr. Robert Fulkerth, [email protected](415) 442-6556

Dr. Constance Beutel, [email protected](415) 442-6543


We are happy to invite you to submit papers to be published in the Business, Education and Technology Journal(ISSN 1528-1256). The Journal is published in paper and on the Web. Please visit us at http://betj.ggu.edu orhttp://internet.ggu.edu/~bfulkerth.

Business, education and technology professionals areinvited to submit papers relevant to their own or re-lated fields. The Journal is a peer-reviewed publica-tion of the School of Technology and Industry atGolden Gate University in San Francisco.

For educators, we are particularly interested in newdevelopments in teaching business and technologysubjects.

Topics should be of interest to multiple readershipsin areas of business, education and technology. Pa-pers that address discipline-specific topics as well asthose that have applications across disciplines are val-ued. Conceptual, developmental and theoretical /ap-plied research articles are appropriate.

We seek articles of approximately 4500 words. TheJournal will also consider publishing shorter papers(2000-3000 words) based on in-progress research,innovative practices, or work that actively connectsthe Journal’s primary emphases.

Interested authors are requested to send their pa-pers to either co-editor listed below. Please e-mail sub-missions with the article attached in Rich Text Format.For initial submissions, papers with extensive graph-ics should also be submitted in paper form.

Robert Fulkerth, Co-EditorSchool of Technology and Industry(415) [email protected]

Constance Beutel, Co-EditorSchool of Technology and Industry(415) [email protected]

Golden Gate University536 Mission StreetSan Francisco CA 94105

Open Call for Papers


Foreword: Interview with Christine Crandell

Constance Beutel

This Summer I had the opportunity to interview Christine Crandell, President of New Business Strategies.New Business Strategies is a future strategy consulting firm that helps enterprise software technology vendorsdominate their chosen markets. Because one of the many factors of leadership has to with vision and action, Iwanted to see what Christine and her company were thinking about, and the ways she put handles on thefuture. What she has to say may provide us with new thinking, and tools for using emerging energies andtrends to your business and personal advantage.

BETJ: Christine, tell us about yourself, your back-ground, education and life passions.

Christine: Let me begin by saying that I am honoredto be interviewed. I grew up in Europe as an Armybrat. Our family moved around a lot, and so I wasexposed to numerous cultures and value systems. Iconsider Turkey as my favorite country as it was sofar outside my normal upbringing. Turkey excited meabout cultures and diversity as well as archeology, andthings like marine biology. My mother is German andI am bilingual in German and English. We moved backto the U.S., to Florida when I was 17 years old. I tookmy bachelors degree and went on to do my MBA fromFlorida Atlantic. I minored in computers.

After graduation, I worked for 7 years at PriceWaterhouse in their management consulting groupdoing systems development and implementation. Ithen moved to SAP America, which then became SAPAG followed by a move West to work with ASK Group,and then on to a marketing position in Oracle. SAPwas the ultimate startup company, and we made therules up as we went along.

These were the early, defining days of what is nowcalled Customer Resource Management (CRM). AtOracle I ran the strategic marketing activities world-wide. These early positions convinced me that I amnot a corporate person and that I needed to go backto consulting, which is when I started New BusinessStrategies with my husband.

My life’s passions have always been centered onintellectual stimulation and trying new things in or-der to grow personally. I have to be challenged andlearning all the time and helping people to grow bycoming up with new ideas.

There are two things that I zero in on in my think-ing about business strategies. The first is what willhappen to the new architecture stack for new appli-cations, and secondly, how will this architecture comeabout and what will it look like in the future? This, ofcourse, involves thinking about the evolving natureof management decision making in the future. How

will people actually tackle decision making under newand future conditions? For instance, U.S. and Euro-pean decision making are different. Add to this mixof processes and styles a globalized and diverseworkforce, then the complexity of decision makingbecomes much more unclear, and to me, a more in-triguing problem to work on. The factors of cultureand technology are huge areas with big problems. So,I’m acting almost as a sensor, detecting new rules ofthe game. As we resolve these types of issues, we needto work on how to help people transition to the newenvironments and platforms for business.

BETJ: Are you writing about these issues?

Christine: Not yet. As much as technology continuesto innovate and evolve, it will take a backseat to deal-ing with our relations with one another. We have spentmillions of dollars on applications. The buying ofapplications has stopped, or at least been slowed as ofmid-2000 and the buying of infrastructure has be-gun. What businesses are realizing is that they havepeople issues. How people relate to each other is avery big component of doing business.

BETJ: Do you think the new technologies and sys-tems will help us to relate to one another?

Christine: Those who want to relate will take advan-tage of these technologies. We have a long way to goas a society to learn how to relate and value one an-other. From space there are no boundaries. Yet we aredealing with all sorts of boundaries to keep peopleapart. Over time we will have to deal with it, but Idon’t see us making much progress over the next tenyears.

BETJ: Describe what New Business Strategies does.

Christine: We are a future strategy consulting firm thathelps enterprise software technology vendors domi-nate their chosen markets by synthesizing their visionand competencies with emerging market opportuni-ties to set courses for achieving market dominance.In essence, we help companies understand what thefuture may look like, and determine how they can le-


verage emerging trends and anticipated market shiftsto their advantage. So, we are with a business at theearly stages of setting its vision and market strategy.We frequently work with them on evolving their strat-egy and marketing as they and their business modelsmature. I often say that we are more in the relation-ship business than anything else, and that depth andbreadth of our client relationships is one of our uniquetrademarks.

I see my role as similar to Lucy in the Peanuts strip.I’m a guide, a future guide. I don’t consider myself afuturist, but more like a guide on a Himalayan trek.

BETJ: What does the future mean to you? To yourbusiness, to the businesses you consult with?

Christine: To me the future means two things, the timeor situation that is to come, and secondly, the oppor-tunity. I believe that we cannot change today but wecan change tomorrow. It really is up to us the collec-tive industry and beyond that, society, to shape whatcan be coming down the road.

For a business, the future does mean possibilities.For some, it means the time when they will becomeleaders, and for others it means another chance atgetting the business model right. The sixty four mil-lion dollar question for clients is, how can we under-stand what the future will look like and see the realisticpossibilities for success? And, just as importantly, howwill we get there? What’s our plan? At New BusinessStrategies, it is critical that we are able to develop arealistic view of what may happen for a business withina realistic timeframe. It’s helpful for our clients to visu-alize the emerging world and what they need to do tobecome market leaders. Very few leaders take measure-ments, keep score about how they are doing.

We help clients do that with what we call inflec-tion points. For example, we have a client in the EastBay for whom we’ve set 3 inflection points in rollingout their strategy. An inflection point is the shift be-tween customer satisfaction to that of managing acustomer’s experience. In essence, we wrap their strat-egy around these inflection points. So, the strategyup to the first inflection point is A, and after that point,it becomes B, and so.

BETJ: What do you see as the key factors and drivingforces influencing and shaping the emerging businessmodels?

Christine: Well, within the context of our enterpriseclass software technology clients, here’s my view. Thekey factors and driving forces include Big Picture ar-eas of the economy, environment, the market and so-ciety. Additionally, technology maturation and newinnovation in the pipeline, software technology buycycle, the evolution of management principles, tech-

nology adoption and value creation. Within technol-ogy innovation is the degree of a technology’s disrup-tive effects. The evolution of management principlesis important because these principles and philosophiesdrive technology acceptance and adoption. Along withnew technology innovation is the need for special-ized services to support the technology. Finally, valuecreation is an important factor because it requires thatthe business problem or condition that is being ad-dressed is painful, acknowledged by the business andit’s widely felt.

A big lesson that I learned early on was to not getenamored with any single factor, driver, technologyor model, but to view all these things on a continuum.

BETJ: What are your strategies for assessing trendsand influences shaping the future?

Christine: We look for patterns and trends. Our strat-egy is centered on a premise that software markets donot control their destiny. Rather, they are influencedby their own products and the driving forces and fac-tors of their tangential market. Now, a tangentialmarket is a related market. For example, supply chainmanagement is a tangential market to customer rela-tionship management. Then we look at the drivingforces and their condition within each of the marketsincluding end user markets. Where it’s possible, weresearch the opinions on the evolution of these forcesand markets.

BETJ: Many forecasting and scenario planning pro-cesses are more like weather predictions that describechanges in the weather and from which people takeaction, for example postponing a picnic if rain is pre-dicted, and so on. Do you feel it’s possible for busi-ness and individuals to influence the forces that shapethe future? If so, how is it done, that is, how do you doit?

Christine: Do I feel it’s possible to shape the future?Absolutely. Many people who have gained a lucidunderstanding of the emerging future build a plan oran organizatio n that takes advantage of the drivingforces and thereby, influence the driving forces. And,there are many examples of this. Siebel is a good ex-ample. Tom Siebel saw a business need and went afterit. He not only became the leader in the market, hebecame the bellwether for where that market was go-ing. In many ways he shaped the future of CRM. Appleis another company that revolutionized the User In-terface with the Mac. But, let’s be clear, these are noteasily sustainable positions. As organizations becomelarge, they lose their nimbleness and willingness totake risks. They stop hiring rule breakers and starthiring rule followers. And many along the way losetheir edge.

Foreword: Interview with Christine Crandell, Constance Beutel


And this ability to shape the future isn’t limited tocompanies. Individuals can also impact the forces ofthe future. I’m watching the impact a few individualshave had in redefining and changing the role of phi-lanthropy on social engineering. If we look at the workof Catherine Muther, for example, we see a people likeher using her fortune and energy to change the worldto be a better place. She is changing how foundationsare formed and operate in order to have a more dra-matic effect on various social issues that need to beaddressed. How is all this done, whether individuallyor as a business? The first ingredient is to see and un-derstand the opportunity and to have a vision on howto address it. Then comes the passionate convictionto make it happen.

BETJ: What is your forecast for the next 10 years inthe realm of computing, information and communi-cations exchange?

Christine: For me, the future becomes foggy at the 5year point. Remember, I’m the guide. If I look out-ward in time, I see that change management philoso-phy is big, up to and beyond the 5 year mark.Technology won’t be so apparent because it will beintegrated into our processes. We’ll have talking walls;I’ll manage the business off a threshold basis, withmore interaction, much like the way we humans in-teract normally. As we look at the future, we see anera of compressed business cycles and integrated tech-nologies. The mundane will disappear in business.What will be needed are the human, business rela-tionships.

I do believe in the nature of digital workspaces,where a truly collaborati ve environment is created.And in this environment collaboration and trust willhave an advantage.

BETJ: Are you a futurist?

Christine: I don’t see myself as a futurist. To me, afuturist is a truly out of the box thinker. One who can

envision a new world with new ways of doing things.I see New Business Strategies more like future guideswho look out in time and see what we think is goingto happen, and then work on ways to get there to capi-talize on those trends. As guides we have responsibili-ties to our clients that futurists don’t have. We mustcarve a path that can be done by the client. Each ofour clients is different and has unique core compe-tencies strengths and weaknesses. So, we must alsokeep an eye on the health of the client along the wayto the future. Strategy is as much about implementa-tion and execution as it is about the vision and theGrand Plan. In our opinion, we haven’t served ourclient well if we don’t take an active interest in theirhealth along the way.

BETJ: What is your greatest hope for education andlearning for the future?

Christine: The methods, techniques and principles aredeveloped that enable all people to realize their great-est potential. Our future depends on effective learn-ing, before people are on the job, while they areworking, and apart from their work, that is, their per-sonal interests.

With a client, we are always looking for learningpoints. I really think of learning as happening every-where, on the job, outside of the job, next to the job. Isee the greatest potential for the world’s society tocome from continuous learning that is individual-cen-tric and individual-guided. Along the way, I believethat as people learn more and are exposed to diver-sity—and that’s diversity in concepts, value systems,ideas, cultures—they become richer individuals.Through diversity comes tolerance and acceptance,and as importantly, more possibility, which is criticalfor agility. And these are individuals who are in a po-sition to give back to their communities, to make in-formed decisions about their lives, environments andfutures.

Foreword: Interview with Christine Crandell, Constance Beutel


Not only a Vision—A Common Vision

Sophia Bekele

A Common VisionVision can be thought of as a foresight, a conceptual framework whereby one articulates her/his thoughts to arrive atan end result as envisaged. A common vision is then a unified view of this framework and complimentary ideas thatreinforce the vision, shared by many.

Recently, an Information and Communication Tech-nologies (ICT) conference was organized by the Brit-ish Council in Addis Ababa at the UNECA conferencefacilities. I think well-organized forums such as thisare important to building consensus of communityunderstanding of issues and to create a shared frame-work. The uniqueness of this conference was that itcalled for an ICT vision in Ethiopia. To successfullyimplement such a vision, the conference further calledfor a National ICT task force led by the Prime Minis-ter himself. This is an ambitious vision, but I believeit is a practical one.

It is a known fact that Ethiopia needs a vision inICT; perhaps the deployment of ICT could be an im-petus for the economic development of the country.None other than the government could also bringabout the changes that will embrace and enable thisvision.

Why the government? Considering that most of thecountry’s key institutions and resources are still un-der government management and driven by the gov-ernment agenda, the success of Information andCommunication Technologies development is stilldependent on government policies. Because of this,private sector involvement in ICT in Ethiopia is cur-rently quite limited. Thus, its vision is nearsighted orhampered by the bureaucracy that is associated withthe implementation of the public sector policies.

The technology sector in Ethiopia, much like othercountries, is characterized by computer products andservices companies. The most popular services pro-vided by computer services businesses have been lim-ited to sales of hardware/software and maintenance,training, software development, consultancy and net-work implementation. While there are about 50 com-panies that are engaged in this business, few do it well,and even fewer earn a profit from it, particularly sus-tainable profit.

The reason behind not attaining sustainable in-come is associated with the high cost of imports, in-cluding computing goods and accessories andtelecommunication costs. Whereas the limitation andlack of differentiation in the product and services

could be directly tied with the telecommunicationspolicy, a government-owned body has a monopolyon the services that could be used to support the de-ployment of ICTs.

Policy changes that foster enabling environments,such as low taxation on Information Technology (IT)products and liberalizing the telecommunication sec-tor, will allow for competition. This competitive en-vironment can result in economies of scale leading tofair prices, specialization, innovation, and new prod-ucts and services.

Additionally, to have an equitable distribution ofservices and to resolve some of the key issues men-tioned, government institutions need to be sensitizedabout private sector business, its development andcontribution to the economy. Many capacity-build-ing seminars by the donor communities to the gov-ernment institutions should also discuss the value andparticipation of the private sector for a sustained de-velopment of the economy.

Many IT and communications companies havebeen successful globally as a result of liberal economicpolicies that include the empowerment of the privatesector. However, deploying ICT on itself might widenor narrow the digital divides. Therefore, the publicpolicy environment is important in securing positiveoutcomes. The right public policy environment wouldallow suitable initiatives by the public and private sec-tors and by civil society organizations, individuallyor in partnership, to contribute to relevant develop-ment and set the context in which enterprise and otherinitiatives would be channeled in the right direction.

Let us look at some examples close to home:• Nigeria has over 4-5 mobile operators, whose busi-

nesses initially started as a joint venture with thegovernment. Several Internet Service Providers(ISPs) exist, and communication and broadcast-ing are deregulated via the franchise model.

• Senegal has over 8 ISPs.• Kenya possesses a similar environment.• Ethiopia, on the other hand, has a single ISP only,

providing insufficient Internet access and hostingservices to an overcrowded market.


The Ethiopian Telecommunication Corporation(ETC) can forge partnerships initially with the pri-vate sector to improve its service delivery capacity, andalso to encourage private sector penetration where theservice will be efficient and profitable. The benefit togovernment will be through receiving royalties and fees.

It is worth noting at this point as we also talk aboutvision for an information society at a country level,the UNECA, as one of the pioneer organizations inICT advocacy in Africa, has put a lot of effort not onlyin advising its member states, but also by investingand advocating the use of ICT for the speedy entry tothe information age. In order to speed the continent’sdigital inclusion, the UNECA has initiated the Afri-can Information Society Initiative (AISI), a guidingframework on which to base information and com-munication activities in Africa. This initiative wasadopted by OAU Council of Ministers meeting in itsSixty Fourth Ordinary Session held in Yaounde,Cameroon, in July 1996.

The AISI action framework calls for the elabora-tion and implementation of national information andcommunication infrastructure (NICI) plans and strat-egies involving development of institutional frame-works; human, information and technologicalresources in all African countries, and the pursuit ofpriority strategies, programs and projects which canassist in the sustainable build-up of an informationsociety in African countries. It has been recognizedby our leaders now that building an information so-ciety will help our continent to accelerate its develop-ment plans, stimulate growth and provide newopportunities in education, trade, healthcare, job cre-ation and food security, helping African countries toleapfrog stages of development and raise their stan-dards of living.

The ECA has also conducted the first edition ofthe African Development Forum (ADF 99) under thetheme “The Challenge to Africa of Globalization andthe Information Age”, held in Addis, Ethiopia, in Oc-tober, 1999, in order to evaluate the progress made inthe implementation of the AISI initiatives.

The implementation of AISI is well underway inAfrica. Some of its achievements are seen in the areaof policy awareness, democratization of access, con-nectivity, and project initiatives such as the UNECA’sTechnology Center for Africa, that have been success-fully launched. Additionally, with a view to monitor-ing the progress and results of AISI, the UNECA hasappointed an African Technical Advisory Committee.In their role as the African vision guiding the AISI,the 10 members of the committee provide technicalguidance and advise the ECA Secretariat on issuesrelated to the implementation modalities of AISI.

The recent meeting of the advisory committee re-sulted in a successful completion of identification ofthe key issues of ICT in Africa, concluding with aCommon Position on Africa’s digital inclusion to theG8’s Digital Opportunities Task Force (Dot Force)created by the G8 Heads of Government. The discus-sions focused on the need to have an African voiceand that a common vision already exists through theAISI framework and the political endorsement andcommitment, and the need to form synergies amongsimilar initiatives.

With the AISI framework, we could say that an Af-rican position is now in place, and Africa has its ownagenda. The emergence of global initiatives aiming atreducing the digital divide between Africa and thedeveloped countries, such as the United Nations’ ICTTask Force and G8’s Dot Force, and other similar ini-tiatives of development agencies and multilateral or-ganizations, also reinforces the AISI framework. Theimplication of these initiatives for Africa is that itneeds to redefine its position in light of the AISIframework to put ICTs to the service of developmentand to enhance the inclusion of Africa into the globaldigital world. Towards this end, Africa will be able toprepare an African Position to the Dot Force, UN Eco-nomic and Social Council (ECOSOC) United NationsTask Force, Economic Forum, and other Internationalforas on the digital divide.

Another development initiative that Africa is com-mitted to is the Millennium Partnership for “AfricanRecovery” Program (MAP), which describes the “de-termination of Africans to extricate themselves andthe continent from the malaise of underdevelopmentand exclusion in a globalizing world.” The key areas(among which the investment and use of informa-tion technology and communications is covered)emphasize that “Africa is marginalized in the worldeconomy, it is hyper-marginalized in the informationeconomy.”

The common vision for ICT can be supported bythe birth of African Union (AU). Jump-started with anew and ambitious Interim Secretary General, AmaraEssy, and modeled on the European Union, the AUenvisions common institutions such as a parliament,a court of justice and a central bank.

ConclusionEthiopia, like any African country, is facing tremen-dous and critical development challenges rangingfrom improving governance, achieving economic re-covery, structural and debt restructuring and repay-ments, ensuring competitiveness, and enhancingmacroeconomic performance, not to mention the

Not only a Vision—A Common Vision, Sophia Bekele


fight against AIDS. A response to these challengesshould start with acknowledgement of the need tohave access to information, whereby we create an in-formed society. In due time, this information societytransforms itself into a knowledgeable society as in-formation can become knowledge production. Eachindividual then, in his or her own capacity, contrib-utes to constituencies, be they government, privatesector or civic society, in a political, economic andsocial context.

In light of these voices for a united African tech-nology infrastructure, continental and internationalcollaborations, efforts, and commitments, and agen-das, it is timely and appropriate to urge our govern-ment to set priorities toward creating an informationsociety, by first endorsing an ICT vision for Ethiopia,

and also by upholding a common and shared visionfrom the initiatives and programs to be implementedat continental, national, sub-regional, and regionallevels within the global milieu.

About the author Sophia Bekele is the President/CEO of CBS Interna-tional, a California- based IT company representedby Sb Communications Network plc, in Addis Ababa,Ethiopia. She is also one of the ten elected membersof the Technical Advisory Committee advising theUNECA in the implementation of the African Infor-mation Society Initiative (AISI).

Not only a Vision—A Common Vision, Sophia Bekele


Extending eBusiness to the Wireless World

Chan Komagan

eBusiness that offers consumer products and services electronically require rapid time-to-market solutions. Becausecompanies need a breakaway strategy that will use emerging distribution channels and extend current business tonew marketplaces, they are starting to embrace emerging technologies such as wireless. The wireless platform acts asa channel for continuous connectivity, transactions, and interactions, which will be crucial as businesses respond tothe imperative of global expansion. There is a huge potential for commerce in the business-to-business (B2B) modelbecause it transports across regional boundaries. But businesses need also to consider how well they fit into the localmarket, and how easy it will be to extend the models into the wireless medium.

Japan and the U.S. as an example use different waysto transport wireless data. Successful mobileeBusinesses must address these variations in the tech-nology and provide a common infrastructure to sup-port them. Mobile eBusiness harnesses the variety ofdelivery platforms and devices, and thereby furtherextends eBusiness opportunities on the Web. How-ever, delivering mobile eBusiness to different market-places in a time-independent and location-sensitivemanner is a challenge.

Mobile eBusiness gives a compelling value propo-sition to a company that wants to differentiate itselffrom its competitors. Although the dynamic natureof the technology is a challenge to building a strongbrand in mobile eBusiness, by offering the same levelof services, dynamic technology can be an advantagewhen building customer relationships. The mobileeBusiness allows• enhanced communication• improved facilitation• secure mobile transactions

The promise of the Internet is personalization andconnectivity of people. Mobile eBusiness lets custom-ers and sellers conduct business in a time - and loca-tion - independent manner. Mobile customers canreach sellers anytime; and sellers and/or service pro-viders can know in advance the customer’s location,which offers a great opportunity to streamline com-merce-related information and services.

The customer is in control of the transaction, therelationship, and the connectivity across devices,channels, and touch-points. Customers inform thebusiness, business informs design, and design informstechnology and standards.

The customer needs a consistent experience, re-gardless of the communication channels. The experi-ence should be same whether the customer connectsvia a PC, a smart phone, or walks into a bricks-and-mortar retail store.

Mobile eBusiness is the extension of the currentInternet model of community—commerce, collabo-ration, and content—to a diverse set of Internet-en-abled tools such as palm devices, mobile phones andweb appliances. Successful mobile eBusinesses will usethese new media as a full extension and improvementupon the traditional desktop Internet experience as away to attract new customers and to greatly expandthe service offerings delivered.

If they are to take advantage of the emerging mar-kets, then, eBusiness firms must rethink the strategyof their offerings to extend support to net-enableddevices. There is a large potential in the mobile wire-less world, and currently there are limited players inthe market.

The eBusiness firm having an international pres-ence must address another challenge. If a mobileeBusiness is to meet the local wireless market, it isrequired to understand the local wireless technology,standards, consumer interest, and the revenue model.Individual mobile solutions will have to be developedto address different wireless markets.

If the business spans continents, a strategy needsto be developed that will address varied wireless mar-kets. The popular Wireless Application Protocol(WAP) standard is being widely used in European andNorth American markets, but not in Japan and otherparts of Asia.

In Japan, the success of I-mode technology is in-disputable and still growing. So, to extend the cur-rent eBusiness to a Japanese wireless market, anI-mode solution must be developed. The point is thatwhatever varied holy-grail devices and networks arein place, the eBusiness system that is developed mustadequately address them.

m-CommerceThe buzzword in the mobile industry right now is m-Commerce (wireless commerce). Industry experts are


convinced that the mCommerce will be a “killer ap-plication” and that it will extend current business of-ferings to mobile phones. The significance ofmCommerce lies in the compelling advantages ofbuying goods and value-added services over mobiletechnologies.

Transactions, geography, and security form the coreof mCommerce. Mobile content is a different propo-sition and it gives a whole new experience to the cus-tomer when accessing the electronic world throughthe mobile device. Ericsson predicts that by 2004, therewill be 600 million mobile Internet users.

Europe has taken a distinct lead in the develop-ment of mobile commerce, just as they lead in themobile phone market. The reasons for their giant leapin this area include the following:

• common standard, GSM• standardized pricing structures• technological innovation• mutual understanding / agreements between car-

riers across boundary• increased competition• value-added servicesCertainly the U.S. is catching up in mobile com-

merce, with players like Motorola and Lucent makinga significant investment in the infrastructure for thenext generation.

Voice, Data, and Multimedia-Enabled Commerce

Imagine a user going to an online retail site to shopfor music CDs. Now, most of the eCommerce Websites provide the ability to test, hear, and experiencesample music. But, how about being able to browsethe same site using a wireless device, downloading thesample music content, getting a sneak peek of themusic video and, finally, buying the CD, using a voice-activated menu? This is not far from reality.

The technology is almost here. The 3G (third gen-eration) and associated technologies are expected toaddress these issues. 3G will transform customers’perceptions of wireless devices. No more will wirelessbe a voice-centric device. The high data-transfer ratesupport of the 3G network will enable the devices toretrieve multimedia content such as digital music,photos, and video content. Some companies are al-ready working on voice-activated eCommerce over thewireless medium.

Motorola’s VoXML (Voice over XML) is the next-generation voice service over the Web. VoXML will

revolutionize the user interface by providing speechrecognition capability for both navigation and input.The end-user’s voice and output is produced via text-speech technology. VoXML is untested in mobile com-merce, but it definitely has a large potential in to makecommercial transaction processes easier. Some mo-bile phone manufacturers are adding VoXML featuresinto their handsets, in addition to other features.

Carriers are readying 3G infrastructure before theyfigure out the applications and business models thatwill drive future growth and profitability. Customerswant thin, mobile, and simple applications that arepersonalized, action-oriented, and location-relevant.

At this time, the profit model remains vague forcontent providers. Some vendors, like AvantGo, arealready offering solutions to push location-sensitivebanner advertisements to customer handhelds. Withthe limited screen size and bandwidth, the delivery ofbanner advertisements to those devices will be chal-lenging.

The four aspects of mobile eBusiness that must beaddressed if the offering is to be robust and reliableare these:• mobile network connections – always on, cross-

boundary• solid wireless security, authentication and certifi-

cation services• management and support for multiple devices• true integration with existing online services.

Security ConsiderationsWireless security is naturally dependent on the wire-less networks. Security is as important in a wirelessworld as it is for a regular online service. Because wire-less spans multiple networks, standards, and technolo-gies, such as CDMA, GSM, iDEN, GPRS, and CDPD,security must be addressed before implementing afull-scale wireless eBusiness. Some of the current wire-less networks lack an open standard, and mostly usea proprietary standard.

As wireless standards (hence the wireless networks)vary across different wireless markets, a security so-lution will have to be designed to take this into ac-count. Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) definesan open standard of security for wireless communi-cation called WTLS. WTLS is a slimmed-down ver-sion of SSL (Secure Socket Link) which is targeted formemory-constrained devices like wireless / smartphones. Standards such as this will help the mobileeBusiness to provide end-to-end security from thedevice level to the application server.

Extending eBusiness to the Wireless World, Chan Komagan


Device Limitations andBandwidth Bottleneck

Skeptics question whether, because of memory andscreen size, wireless devices can satisfactorily support3G features such as video and audio capabilities. Thereare already a lot of announcements from wireless(handset) manufacturers like Nokia, Ericsson, Sony& Samsung about how well their new devices sup-port 3G. However, analysts expect it will take at leastone year to see devices that can take advantage of anynew 3G services. These new devices should be de-signed to transmit and receive bandwidth-intensiveapplications. Wireless heavyweights like Ericsson andNokia are working on addressing user interface andbandwidth issues in their future version of handsets.

Three mobile device types dominate the market:Palm/HandVisor (all types) based on the Palm Oper-ating system, Symbian/EPOC devices (like Commu-nicators), and smart phones/mobile wireless phones(mostly proprietary OS and browsers). An increasingnumber of products can deliver pages, including ads,to smart phones and handheld screens.

There is a lot of potential in B2C and B2B markets.How does eBusiness capitalize on this opportunity anddevelop systems for high bandwidth? The B2B mar-ket is exploding at an enormous rate in the U.S. andrest of the world. Already, we are seeing a huge poten-tial in B2C mobile eBusiness markets. Examples in-clude Amazon and Buy.com.

Forrester predicts that online business trade (B2Bmarketplace) will hit nearly $3 Trillion in 2004, a sig-nificant part slated for the wireless medium.

We are seeing an explosion in the number of wire-less devices offering different features, and a majorchallenge will be to deliver uniform content and trans-actions to multiple wireless devices with different fea-tures and standards. The wireless phones useWAP-based browsers like UPLink, and Palm devicesuse PQA to present the content. The standards imple-mented by different wireless Internet browsers are:• WML 1.1 & 1.2 browser from WAP Forum• HDML from Phone.com• PQA (for Palm Devices), a subset of HTML for Palm

Platforms• A subset of HTML for Internet browsers on 2-way

pagers and some Wireless Personal Digital Assis-tantsPhones from various manufacturers implement

their own micro browser interfaces differently, soWML implements a very abstract navigation meta-phor. If you’ve been used to using hyperlinks and navi-gation buttons in your HTML pages, you’ll need totake a good look at what WML requires you to do.

Mobile eBusiness should take these circumstancesinto consideration when implementing the infrastruc-ture. An electronic business provider (seller) canchoose to outsource the application to an ASP or toan outsourcer, which will provide significant value tothe business in terms of• Expandability• Faster time to market• Targeting multiple devices and platforms• Smoother upgrades• Easy back-end integration

The mobile devices described above support threeprimary access paradigms that Web sites designed tosupport mobile users must consider. Jupiter empha-sizes that although live, two-way wireless access froma smart phone or a PDA best approximates browsingfrom a PC, for some mobile data applications otheraccess methods may offer better reach, better perfor-mance, and greater Web site leverage.

The Mobile Value ChainThere are three primary groups that form the valuechain for mobile business growth: infrastructure pro-viders, those who provide the medium, and servicesand content sellers.

Infrastructure Providers

The infrastructure providers include players involvedin building the underlying network infrastructure andplayers that manufacture innovative devices. They areat the top of the value chain. The three major provid-ers are Ericsson, Nokia and Motorola.

These players are heavily investing in the next-gen-eration services, both in Europe and rest of the world.Many industry-watchers believe that mobile com-merce will be realized only when the bandwidth forcommunication improves. There is a smooth transi-tion undergoing from the current 2G (second gen-eration) to 3G services. 3G service will provide analways-on (permanent) connection to the Internet,allowing commerce to be conducted seamlessly. Themobile devices manufacturers are coming up with areinnovative devices that will support advanced featuressuch as wireless Internet, multimedia, color screens,and voice-activated menus.

Mobile Operators

Mobile operators form the core of the mobile revolu-tion by providing a reliable network, enhanced cus-tomer relationships, and aggregation of devices andservices. They leverage the network value and increasethe marginal profitability. In addition, they can en-



hance the customer relationship by providing custom-ized services and by bundling value-added services.

Content and Service Providers

Content and service providers play the same role as atraditional Web industry by providing personalized,timely content to users and service providers. Con-tent providers will fine-tune their content to deliverto multiple channels.

Applications that are served over the Internet areinformation, news, media, weather, sports, business/purchase activities. Typically, content providers workwith the service provider or a portal in developingcustomized wireless data and advertisements. Thenthe portals and mobile operators will performcustomization and aggregation of the content.

The service providers work with other players tocreate market awareness, identify pricing modulessuitable for specific demographics, conduct marketresearch, and develop location-dependent advertisingmessages.

ConclusionTo summarize, mobile eBusiness leverages currentdistribution channels and provides a transparentmedium that connects buyers and sellers in a time,location independent manner. Different mobile play-ers make the mobile value chain. They include infra-structure providers, mobile operators, content andservice providers. Together, they provide a seamlessenvironment for the mobile eBusiness environmentto operate. Although the environment is really con-ducive for the players, the validity of consumer adop-tion for the mobile eBusiness market still needs to betested.

Glossary, AcronymsWap: The Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) is anopen, global specification that empowers mobile us-ers with wireless devices to access and interact withinformation and services instantly.

Refer to Is Wap Under Pressure? For more recentinformation on WAP

http://www.anywhereyougo.com/ayg/ayg/wireless/Article.po?type=Article_Archives&page=26435GPRS: The General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) isa new non-voice value added service that allows in-formation to be sent and received across a mobile tele-phone network. It supplements today’s CircuitSwitched Data and Short Message Service.

Refer GPRS Wins Converts in High-Speed WirelessMarket for more information on GPRS


http://www.allnetdevices.com/developer/white/2000/09/29/gprs_wins2.html2G: Second generation Wireless standards and tech-nologies (includes, GPRS, EDGE protocols). Refer toGPRS Wins Converts in High-Speed Wireless Marketfor more information on GPRS.

http://www.allnetdevices.com/developer/white/2000/09/29/gprs_wins2.html3G: Third generation Wireless standards and tech-nologies (include 1xrt, 3xrt, W-CDMA, CDMAOneetc)

Refer to Wireless 3G: The future of Wireless for moreinformation on 3G related technologies.

http://www.allnetdevices.com/developer/white/2000/06/30/wireless_3g.htmlGSM: 2nd generation Wireless standard that replacedlegacy TDMA; technology agreed upon by most wire-less operators in EuropeCDMA: Code Division Multiplex Access. CDMA is a“spread spectrum” technology, which means that itspreads the information contained in a signal over amuch greater bandwidth than the original signal.CDPD: Cellular Digital Packet Data, a data transmis-sion technology developed for use on cellular phonefrequencies. It allows transmission of data in digitalpackets. This technology offers data transfer rates ofup to 19.2 Kbps, quicker call set up, and better errorcorrection than using modems.iDEN: Integrated Digital Enhanced Network is awireless technology from Motorola combining thecapabilities of a digital cellular telephone, two-wayradio, alphanumeric pager, and data/fax modem in asingle network. iDEN operates in the 800 MHz,900MHz, and 1.5 GHz bands and is based on timedivision multiple access (TDMA) and GSM architec-ture.WML: Wireless Markup language, WML (WirelessMarkup Language) is a markup language based onXML, and is intended for use in specifying contentand user interface for narrowband devices, includingcellular phones and pagers.

WML is designed with the constraints of smallnarrowband devices in mind. These constraints in-clude: 1) Small display and limited user input facili-ties; 2) Narrowband network connection; 3) Limitedmemory and computational resources.

About the AuthorChan Komagan is a consultant with Scient® and hespecializes in the cutting-edge wireless technologies.His expertise includes WAP, BlueTooth and mobileeBusiness.


Teaching Applied Business Forecasting Over the Internet

Thomas P. Bundt

AbstractThe burgeoning “virtual university” made possible through the Internet poses financial educators with the challengeof providing high-quality web-based instruction to meet the demands of the growing market for web-based learning.Financial educators are being challenged to create the multi-media resources and pedagogical content required tofacilitate web-based learning of quantitative business courses. The purpose of this paper is to present some insightsgained from teaching a course in applied business forecasting over the Internet. Particular challenges in providing aweb-based quantitative business course are addressed as well as recommendations for those seeking to take theircourses online.

Teaching Applied BusinessForecasting Over the Internet

Today, with high-speed network connections and soft-ware startups supplying colleges and universities withsophisticated distance learning software, the Internethas added a new dimension to graduate education.Indeed, higher education’s “virtual university” is justthe latest manifestation of the explosion of informa-tion technology on the Internet. Today, most collegesand universities offer online courses and Web-baseddistance learning degree programs, some even accept-ing credit for online courses maintained by other in-stitutions.1 The rewards can be great: New YorkUniversity’s School of Continuing and ProfessionalStudies earns revenues in excess of $90 million andHarvard’s Extension School earns over $150 million.The important question is, Does it work? Althoughstudents and administrators seem imbued by this newtechnology, faculty members remain divided. In fact,a faculty report at the University of Illinois concludedthat providing high-quality distance instruction ismore costly and time-consuming than in the tradi-tional classroom.2

As colleges and universities are pressured by com-petitors to supply Web-based distance learning pro-grams, this new form of teaching/learning raisesconcerns over quality. Can graduate or professionalstudents actually learn as much in the “virtual class-room” as in the traditional classroom? How shoulduniversities decide upon a distance-learning programgiven the increasing number of Internet distance-learning software providers? How will regional col-leges and universities overcome the “Wharton brand,”available any time all the time on the Internet? Theseand other issues are becoming increasingly importantas the market for Web-based education matures.

I. BackgroundUsing my experiences in teaching over the Internet,this paper explores important issues related to qual-ity distance learning, and provides guidelines for thoseseeking to develop Web-based quantitative businesscourses. Accordingly, this note is of interest to thosewho currently or in the near future wish to develop aquantitative business course over the Web. SectionOne outlines my personal experience in teaching agraduate level quantitative business course over theInternet. Section Two discusses recent trends in dis-tance learning in graduate and professional education.Section Three discusses selection of the Web-basedlearning software and Internet course developmentissues. Section Four presents a summary of the coursein applied business forecasting stressing pedagogicalissues. Section Five presents student comments andreactions as well as suggestions for improvement. Fi-nally, Section Six discusses faculty experiences andissues regarding online education at the graduate andprofessional level.

The background for this paper is based on my ex-periences in teaching a graduate-level course in ap-plied business forecasting over the Internet at OregonGraduate Institute [OGI] over a three-year period.The three-credit course on practical aspects of busi-ness forecasting was organized into 10 weekly mod-ules centered on interactive case studies using theSORITECTM professional forecasting software.3 Thecourse stressed a multi-media approach using (1)printed materials (downloadable text and instruc-tional materials including lectures notes, detailed in-teractive case studies, and end-of-chapter exercisesolutions), (2) Internet technology (course interac-tion and delivery software), and (3) the SORITEC‘forecasting software (student version bundled withthe text). Students were evaluated on a weekly basis


Teaching Applied Business Forecasting Over the Internet, Thomas P. Bundt

based on multiple-choice exams and written cri-tiques of module case studies, all facilitated throughemail.

II. Why Teach a Course Over theInternet?

By now, most educators have been involved in someactivity regarding distance learning, if nothing morethan contemplating their future as teachers. Some ofus remember previous attempts at distance learningbased on videotapes, satellite-distributed classrooms,and videoconferencing. While these early attempts atdistance learning paved the ground for today, manyof these programs failed. What is new today? The an-swer is the Internet, which is a whole new paradigmfor distance learning.

Until recently, regional colleges and universitieshave been aggressive players in the “virtual univer-sity” market, while “elite” institutions have been slowto respond. This has changed with the emergence ofseveral “strategic alliances” among top-ranked busi-ness schools and new online degree programs. Ofparticular note is the recent agreement between theLondon School of Economics and top U.S. businessschools like Stanford and the University of Chicagoto distribute management education over the Web. Auniversity administrator comments, “Business schoolsare now faced with the need to internationalize, de-velop strategic alliances and use technology effectivelywhile protecting their intellectual property (i.e., cur-riculum).”

What is driving all this strategic posturing amongproviders of higher education? The answer is simple:distance learning over the Internet is a profitablegrowth industry. Estimates predict there will be morethan 2.2 million students enrolled in Internet coursesin 2002 (paying up to $4,000 in some cases). Web-based courses allow universities to compete for awhole new clientele: the so-called “busy professional”who seeks convenient high-quality supplemental edu-cation paid for and/or required by his or her employerand as a prerequisite for advancement. Whiddon(2000) reports that $70 billion is spent annually oncorporate training, much provided by organizationsnot in the realm of traditional universities in the past.Roberts (1998) argues that most of this corporatetraining will soon take place on the Internet due to“cost savings, timeliness, and efficiency.” Phillips(1998) predicts the future MBA degree will be pri-marily Web-based. In addition, Wall Street venturecapital is pouring into the “virtual university” with

several software startups soon to become the newest“hot” Internet IPO. The point is that the Internetlearning market is an important potential source oftuition revenue for colleges and universities as evi-denced by the “rush” to provide distance-learningcourses and degrees. Accordingly, Deans and Admin-istrators, behaving like any savvy investor, are likelyto pressure their faculty to be leaders in this growthindustry, knowing the potential losses if left behind!

Given the flurry of activity in Web-based learning,one can identify three reasons why administrators arelikely to promote Web-based learning activities. First,Internet technology can enhance traditional educa-tional activities allowing faculty to better serve cur-rent students in traditional classroom settings. Second,colleges and universities seeking to provide workingprofessionals with continuing and professional edu-cation are using Web-based learning as their primaryvehicle to accomplish these goals. Third, many re-gional business schools are now supplementing theircurriculum with Web-based learning courses offeredby other universities. Finally, administrators are likelyto assert “putting courses on the Web is quick, easy,and profitable.” Accordingly, in addition to facultyseeking innovation in their teaching, a real incentivefor Web-based learning is likely to be economic as col-leges and universities compete in the new “virtualuniversity.”

III. Web-Based Learning IssuesOnce you decide to participate in the “virtual univer-sity,” unless computer science and HTML are yourhobbies, you are likely to seek professional help indeveloping and delivering a Web-based course. For-tunately, there are plenty of people willing and readyto help. Numerous distance-learning software vendorsranging from content-neutral platforms to custom-ized CDs bundling both content and delivery are avail-able.4

My ten-week Web-based course in applied busi-ness forecasting was delivered over the Internet usingthe Web Course Tools [WebCT] distance-learningsoftware. A spin-off from the Computer Science de-partment at the University of British Columbia,WebCT boasts more than 3.6 million student users in97,000 courses at over 800 colleges and universities inmore than 40 countries. In addition, several majorpublishers use WebCT to build Web-based courses tocompliment their course textbooks.

Why did I choose WebCT? Designed for a broadaudience of users, WebCT integrates several tools suchas a file manager and built-in editor that allow in-structors with limited programming experience to



build a Web-based course in a relatively short pe-riod of time. In addition, WebCT supports a threadedbulletin board and logged chat areas for student-stu-dent and student-faculty asynchronous and synchro-nous interaction. WebCT also has administrative toolsincluding on-line quizzes, grading and studentprogress tracking. In addition, leasing the WebCTprogram on a remote server was quite cheap: $150for 25 student accounts. As an added benefit, use ofthe remote server eliminates hardware and securityissues surrounding using a local server. Accordingly,for reasons of support, industry leadership, and cost,I chose WebCT to deliver our graduate-level coursein applied business forecasting.

IV. Pedagogical IssuesGiven the highly statistical nature of a graduate-levelcourse in applied business forecasting, the challengeis how to effectively teach such a course over theInternet. Typically, in Web-based learning, studentsdownload course materials and study them like a text.This approach stresses passive learning and tends torequire a high degree of student motivation. Discus-sions are largely handled through chat rooms forcourses in which student interaction is a major com-ponent. My dilemma: Would these techniques workfor a highly quantitative subject like forecasting?

Given the lack of a content-based course in appliedbusiness forecasting from “new economy” vendors, Isought to develop a practitioner oriented coursestressing “hands on” forecasting applications over theWWW. Accordingly, the goal was to find a pedagogi-cal approach requiring students to actively participatein the forecasting process. Here the goal was criticalthinking and learning by experience. How do we ob-tain this over the Internet? Given the subject matter(mainly statistical inference and regression analysis),my focus was finding the pedagogical approach thatwould most facilitate students’ mastery over the coursematerial. Thus, how course content is presented overthe Internet is a major issue requiring some degree ofthought, as opposed to simply moving lectures andproblem-sets to a Web site.

I considered three pedagogical approaches: a self-study readings course; a discussion-based approachcentering on group chat sessions; or a case drivenmodular approach in which the chief pedagogical toolwould be case studies. A readings-course approach wasdismissed as being too dependent on individual stu-dent backgrounds and motivation. Simply discuss-ing solutions to end-of-chapter exercises was clearlynot enough. In addition, the highly statistical and

computational aspect of the course was not condu-cive to chat room discussions, although students wereencouraged to consult with their peers as part of theeducational process using the WebCT bulletin board.Therefore, the case approach was adopted as the chiefpedagogical tool.5

The case studies were developed to utilize theSORITEC professional forecasting software, whichconveniently generates forecasts and statistical analy-sis using a wide variety of modern forecasting tech-niques including regression analysis, data smoothingmodels, time series decomposition, and ARIMA mod-els. In addition, all text examples, end-of-chapter ex-ercises, and sixteen sample case studies have SORITECprograms as resources available to faculty from IrwinMcGraw-Hill Higher Education. A sample case studyis found in the appendix to this paper.

V. Student CommentsThe applied business-forecasting course was offeredthree times over the three-year period 1998-2000 withover 25 students in total. Most students were enrolledin OGI’s MS in Computational Finance program orthe MS in Management in Science and Technologyprogram. Several students had jobs that involved someaspect of business forecasting for such firms as Boeing,Pfizer, and Paramount Studios.

Student comments were grouped into three areas:First, how much did students think they learned? Sec-ond, how did students function in the non-traditionalself-motivated world of Web-based distance educa-tion and how did they evaluate the WebCT coursesoftware? Third, how did students evaluate case stud-ies as the major pedagogical tool? Could a case ap-proach work over the WWW?

While a true objective examination of student com-prehension in the “virtual university” is beyond thescope of this paper, I was able to obtain substantialsubjective student comments, which in my experience,tend to be directly related to objective learning mea-sures when dealing with graduate or professional stu-dents. Most students cite the usual distance learningbenefits of (1) not having to travel to a central loca-tion, and (2) greater student-directed time manage-ment including choosing where and when they accessthe course. Indeed, time is a key issue because Web-based learning not only offers greater time flexibility,but also saves time — some students report learningat a faster pace than in traditional settings.

First, did students really learn using Web-basedtechniques? While there is little disagreement aboutthe convenience benefits of Web-based learning, there



is concern about a tradeoff between convenience andcomprehension. Accordingly, the primary issue ofconcern in Web-based distance learning is studentcomprehension and retention relative to the tradi-tional classroom setting. Several students found theexperience quite positive, with some students report-ing they actually learned more than in a traditionalcourse. For example, a Computational Finance stu-dent with substantial experience in graduate-leveleconometrics commented, “I would definitely takeanother Web-based course in the future even if I prob-ably work more than for the other courses. But I havealso probably learned more.” An apparent reason forstudent satisfaction with Web-based learning is thatsome students find traditional classroom settings chal-lenging. Three-hour night classes can be especiallytedious for students who have already spent a full dayon the job! Others cite the ability to discuss in detailissues with the instructor without having to take upothers’ time.

Second, student motivation, important in anycourse, can surface as an important risk factor forsome students in the seemingly relaxed atmosphereof the typical distance learning course, as expressedin this comment from a software engineer: “Web wasconvenient, however can procrastinate more.” So thecourse was divided into ten weekly modules to pre-vent students from getting behind or, in some cases,getting ahead of the rest of the class.

Another important issue is the quality and quan-tity of interaction among students and faculty. Onestudent commented, “Getting answers to questionsabout the course material is only an email away.” Un-fortunately, several students reported problems inter-acting with the instructor and other students. Onestudent commented, “It usually takes too long to settlean online ‘Forum’ discussion, or to get any responseback.” Another noted, “It was tough to get questionsanswered or even asked well.” Another student noted,“Lack of face to face contact decreases the ability toget understanding.” Indeed, despite instructor effortsto stimulate interactive discussion through the WebCTbulletin board, too many students did not activelyparticipate in this aspect of the class. Several studentssuggested that some form of introductory class ses-sion in which students and instructors could meetwould encourage student interaction.

How did students react to the WebCT distance-learning software? Most students found WebCT easyto use, but others suggested that a tutorial on how touse WebCT would benefit students. As for Internetreliability, some students experienced delays and mi-nor compatibility problems. Posting documents inPDF format, which avoids formatting problems when

converting files into HTML, solved most of theseproblems.

Third, how did students evaluate course content,notably the SORITEC case studies? This was an im-portant issue for the instructor, who hypothesized thatcase studies would be a particularly useful pedagogi-cal tool in the distance learning context, because itwould force students into applying course materialsand lead to active learning. A software design engi-neer commented, “The SORITEC cases were very use-ful for a solid understanding of materials covered.”An operations technician stressed that the cases “wereessential to the understanding of the material.” A con-sultant commented, “Overall, I was happy with thecourse. Specifically, the text worked well with the de-livery; the case studies were vital to the success of thiscourse.” The comments above support further re-search on case studies as an effective option in thedelivery of a quantitative business course over theWeb.

VI. Faculty IssuesStakeholder analysis can be an effective way to un-cover principal-agent issues in any business endeavor.Following this paradigm one can identify three setsof stakeholders: students, faculty, and administration.While students and administrators have been quickto embrace Web-based distance learning, faculty varyin opinion. Some faculty embrace Web-based learn-ing as effective, touting its convenience, and predictits widespread acceptance. For instance, Sonner (1999)found those students with a relatively high exposureto basic business courses through distance learningtended to perform better relative to their peers in thebusiness capstone course. Yet others express concernabout distance learning effectiveness, credibility of so-called “virtual degree mills,” and vendor interferenceand control over curriculum issues. Indeed, I havefound some “content” providers make quality andcurriculum decisions, which are not necessarily in thestudents’ interests. Fortunately, with WebCT, this isnever an issue. These and other issues regarding fac-ulty support have surfaced as administrators embracedistance learning as the new growth industry in aca-deme.

First, some faculty report clear advantages to thevirtual classroom: students are more likely to have readthe material; student discussions are livelier and wellinformed; and time is no longer an issue. Studentsmaster material at their own pace and some seem tothrive in their apparent anonymity. On the other hand,instructors may miss the feedback of body language,



not knowing whether a point has been made. Thisbrings up the common issue of lack of effective stu-dent faculty interaction. An interesting example of thediverse views on the issue of student/faculty interac-tion came from Supreme Court Justice Ruth BaderGinsburg who criticized the distance learning J.D.program at Concord University Law School. Ginsburgcommented, “I am troubled by ventures like Concord,where a student can get a J.D. without ever laying eyeson a fellow student or professor. We should strive toensure that the Internet remains a device for bring-ing people together and does not become a force forisolation.”

Over the longer term, an unforeseen consequenceis lack of intellectual satisfaction from the delivery ofa good lecture, which “true” teachers claim to seek.Unfortunately, I have concluded that Web-basedcourses are “exciting” to develop, but “boring” to teach.Another important issue for faculty is their time com-mitment, both in getting started and in monitoring aWeb-based course. First time instructors will likelyfind the experience quite time consuming, depend-ing on their knowledge of HTML. While the WebCTpackage makes life quite easy, instructors should planto spend significant time getting started. In monitor-ing the course, a teaching assistant can be quite help-ful, depending on the number of students. In addition,be prepared for flurries of emails, all requiring de-tailed and sophisticated responses. The burden in timeis likely to be significant, and sometimes underesti-mated by administrators. In general, faculty support(financial, technical, promotional) for their efforts isa crucial issue for the eventual success of any Web-based learning program.

VII. Adminisrative IssuesAs university Administrators make the case for get-ting on the distance-learning bandwagon, importantissues arise such as marketing support, quality con-trol, and accreditation. Some faculty argue that thecosts of internet-based learning is often understated,leading to lack of long-term investment and commit-ment for distance learning programs. In addition,administrators are likely to have to deal with issues ofintellectual property used on the Internet, accredita-tion standards for online courses, and revised pro-motion standards for faculty. “We have a long way togo before we get the support at a level that will helporganizations learn enough to create sustaining pro-grams,” says Ray Steele, the former president of theU.S. Distance Learning Association.

Another issue surfacing in the debate over distancelearning is the role of software vendors in curriculumdecisions. Are the numerous for-profit vendors seek-ing influence over course content a threat to facultycontrol over the curriculum? Will vendors shy awayfrom unprofitable programs and controversial sub-ject matters? I have already encountered this with aparticular vendor who was skeptical that a Web-basedcourse in applied forecasting would meet their pay-back criteria. Are administrators and/or faculty oper-ating under “false” assumptions and listening toomuch to the vendors, i.e., listening to the “on-linecanon”? These issues and others are likely to play amajor role in determining winners and losers as themarket for distance learning matures. The lesson forAdministrators is that distance learning, or the lackthereof, is yet another risk factor to be managed intoday’s “virtual university.”

VII. ConclusionIs this all necessarily a good thing? While this ques-tion may be more metaphysical than practical, it doesdeserve discussion because distance learning will likelyprogress at a faster pace than our understanding andacceptance. While distance learning may have the po-tential to produce many unemployed Ph.D.’s, it alsopromises to be an inevitable part of the future. Profes-sionals who wish to work full time while taking classesor seeking an advanced degree will continue their de-mand for convenience, flexible schedules and “learn-ing on demand.” In fact, we can all count on the factof this expanding market, choosing not whether, buthow we will respond. The lesson to faculty is to lookat the changes regarding distance learning as inevi-table and plan their future accordingly: that is, to viewdistance learning as a real option on the future!

Footnotes1. For some links to distance learning sites and programs see

Rottenberg (1999).

2. For an excellent internal review of distance learning see “Teach-ing at an Internet Distance: the Pedagogy of Online Teachingand Learning,” University of Illinois Faculty Seminar, Decem-ber 7, 1999.

3. Full Information Software, Inc., the vendor for SORITEC, isfound at http://www.fisisoft.com/index.htm.

4. Some notable vendors include UNext.com, Pensare, Univer-sity Access, Cardean. Many of these vendors have entered intocooperative arrangements with top universities to bundle con-tent with course delivery software in an attempt to gain marketshare in the “virtual university.”



5. The text chosen for the applied business forecasting coursewas Wilson and Keating’s Applied Business Forecasting, 3rdedition. Besides being written for a broad audience and stress-ing “hands on” forecasting, the text is bundled with a studentversion of the SORITEC professional forecasting software.

AppendixThe following is a sample case study designed to

facilitate web-based student interaction with theSORITEC forecasting software. Other case studies areavailable upon request.

Case: Are Stock Rates of ReturnNormally Distributed?

Goal: This case introduces various descriptive statis-tics generated by SORITEC to make statistical infer-ence on monthly rates of return for the Dow Jones 30Index. Specifically, students will test whether monthlystock returns follow a normal probability distribu-tion and make probability statements about the be-havior of stock returns. Specifically, this caseintroduces• How to access stock price data in SORITEC• Using the SYNOPSIS command to generate De-

scriptive Statistics• Testing whether sample rates of return are Normally

Distributed• Making Statistical Inference using the Standard

Normal Distribution• Forecasting losses on the Stock Market.

Accessing the Data: Open the ECONDATA.SDBusing the file menu. (See Case #1 of Chapter One fordetailed instructions on how to access theECONDATA.SDB databank).

For this assignment we will access a standard port-folio of 30 stocks — the Dow Jones 30 Industrials,coded as FSDJ. To store this data into the currentmemory type:

copy fsdj

We now close the ECONDATA.SDB file by typing:

close econdata

For this assignment we will examine rates of re-turn on the Dow Jones 30 data over a sample periodfrom 1980M1 through 1997M4. This is accomplishedby typing:

use 1980m1 1997m4

Since the focus in finance is on the rate of return,we next convert our stock price data into rates of re-turn by use of the COMPUTE command:

compute %fsdj = log(fsdj) - log(fsdj{-1})

This creates a new series titled %FSDJ that is theproportionate change in the Dow Jones 30. Onceagain we are using continuously compounded ratesof return, which is the default way to measure rates ofreturn in the finance literature.

To check current memory and the range of our datatype:

symbols(full)

Stock Returns and the NormalDistribution

Financial economists have long sought to definethe return generating process of asset prices. Specifi-cally, are monthly stock returns normally distributed?If so, all the information we need to make probabilitystatements about future stock returns is the mean andvariance using the standard normal distribution.

We can plot the monthly %FSDJ series using thegraphics menu. For convenience we first transformthe data to percent by multiplying through by 100:

p%fsdj = %fsdj*100

A time-series plot of the transformed series isshown below.

Note that while monthly percentage rates of returnare quite random, they appear to average slightly abovezero and cluster around the mean.



To check this assertion further, we can generate afrequency distribution of P%FSDJ using the FREQcommand in the STATS menu. This graph above willalso help us identify the interval endpoints for theFREQ command. Specifically, stock rates of returnvery rarely go above or below 5 percent in a givenmonth. Accordingly, when you are prompted to in-sert a vector of interval endpoints, type the followingvector into the Matrix Input dialog box:

-10 -5 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 5 10

The result is the following frequency distributionof Dow Jones rates of return:

Frequency Distribution and Breakdown Analysis

Variable = P%FSDJ

From To Count Mean Std. Dev

-14.464 -14.464 1.000 -14.464 .000-14.109 -14.109 1.000 -14.109 .000-10.000 -5.000 6.000 -7.336 1.808

-5.000 -3.000 7.000 -3.710 .690-3.000 -2.000 14.000 -2.445 .257-2.000 -1.000 13.000 -1.528 .361-1.000 .000 31.000 -.468 .295

.000 1.000 28.000 .506 .3301.000 2.000 26.000 1.567 .2942.000 3.000 27.000 2.403 .2973.000 5.000 37.000 3.709 .4265.000 10.000 16.000 6.719 1.363

10.115 10.115 1.000 10.115 .000

Total Sample 208.000 .997 3.382

Considering the reported frequency distribution,stock rates of return cluster around the averagemonthly rate of return of .997%, and can thereforebe approximated by the normal probability distribu-tion.

Before we proceed to formally test our return datafor normality, we can explore some of the implica-tions of assuming stock rates of return are normallydistributed. The key benefit is simplicity, in that if weknow the mean (measure of location) and variance(measure of dispersion) of a normally distributed ran-dom variable then we know completely the behaviorof such a variable from its probability distributionfunction. To see this point we will make a simple fore-cast regarding the probability of a loss, in any givenmonth, on the Dow Jones 30 Industrials Index.

To proceed we first estimate some sample descrip-tive statistics of P%FSDJ using the Synopsis com-mand:

synopsis p%fsdj

Question #1: Based upon the estimated monthlymean rate of return, calculate the mean annual rateof return over the ten-year period noting that yourdata is monthly.

ANSWER: Using SORITEC, the following descrip-tive statistics for P%FSDJ were estimated.

Summary Statistics for %FSDJ

Total Obs =208 Missing=0

Median=.119359E-01 Lwr Bnd=.609340E-02

Upper Bnd=.169556E-01

Minimum=-.144645 Maximum=.101153 Range = .245798

Mean=.997453E-02 Variance=.114392E-02

Std Dev=.338219E-01

Coef Var=3.39082 Skewness =-.938687 Kurtosis=3.75964

Mode is undefined. All values are unique.

Quartiles: -.622513E-02 .116913E-01 .306789E-01

Deciles: -.254760E-01 -.112851E-01 -.303167E-02

.292151E-02 .116913E-01 .189666E-01

.251968E-01 .355167E-01 .405474E-01

The annual rate of return is found by multiplyingthe mean monthly return by 12. The mean monthlyreturn on the Dow was .009974. Accordingly, the an-nual return is 12 times the monthly average, which is12(.009974) = .119688 or about 12%. This reflectsthe historical rate of return earned on the Dow overthe 1980M1-1997M4 periods.

Question #2: Given that annual standard deviationis the preferred measure of risk in finance, how riskyis the Dow Jones index?

Answer: We first find the annual variance by not-ing that the variance of a sum is the sum of the vari-ances.

Monthly Variance of %FSDJ = .001144Annual Variance = 12(.001144) = .013728Annual Standard Deviation = (.013728)1/2 =

.117166.

Accordingly, the average squared variation aboutthe mean is 11.7% and serves as a measure of pricerisk in the stock market, i.e., the expected variability



about the mean is 11.7%. It is useful to note that therisk of the Dow Jones portfolio is less than the aver-age risk of stocks in the portfolio. This is because ofthe financial risk benefits of portfolio diversification.

Forecasting Stock Rates of Return

On way to examine stock market behavior is in thecontext of classical statistics. Specifically, if stock ratesof return follow a normal probability distribution, allbehavior is summarized in the mean and variance.Accordingly, using the standard normal probabilitydistribution we can make probability statementsabout the behavior of stock rates of return.

Question #3: Given the descriptive statistics re-ported above, what is the probability that, in any givenmonth, the Dow Jones 30 industrials composite in-dex realizes a loss? Specifically, find P (%FSDJ < 0).

Answer: Since, %FSDJ is normally distributed withmean .009975 and variance .001144, and the Dow-Jones 30 is an observable population, we can makeinference about the Dow using the standard normaldistribution. Accordingly, we transform the data bysubtracting the mean and dividing by the standarddeviation to create a standard normal variable denotedas Z.

Using the standard normal transformation, theappropriate Z value for %FSDJ = 0 is given by:

Z = (0 - .009975)/.033822 = -0.295.

Hence, the problem can be re-stated as finding P[Z < -0.295].

Using the Standard Normal Table and interpolat-ing we have:

P [Z < -0.295] = P [Z ≤ 0] - P [-0.295 ≤ Z ≤ 0].5000 - (0.1141 + 0.1179)/2 = .5000 - .116 =

0.384.

Accordingly, there is about a 39 percent chance that,in any given month, the Dow Jones composite has anegative rate of return, i.e., a loss. Not to worry, thereare 12 months in a year and we didn’t say how muchthe loss was.

Some Tests of Normality

To formally test for normally distributed returns, weexamine two parameters that characterize a normaldistribution. The first parameter is SKEWNESS, which

measures the symmetry in a distribution and is de-fined as the normalized third moment of a distribu-tion. For distributions that are normally distributed,the skewness parameter is zero. Accordingly, we cantest our returns data for normality by testing the nullthat are returns data have a skewness parameter ofzero.

Another parameter used to define a normal distri-bution is KURTOSIS, or the normalized fourth mo-ment, which characterizes the shape of a normaldistribution. The normal distribution has kurtosisequal to 3, but fat-tailed distributions with extra prob-ability mass in the tail areas have higher kurtosis. Ac-cordingly, we can test our returns data for normalityby testing the null that returns have a kurtosis param-eter of 3, i.e., reject in favor of excess kurtosis.

Question #4: Report the estimated skewness pa-rameter. Test the null hypothesis, at the approximate95% level of confidence, that the skewness of our re-turns data is zero using the result that the sample skew-ness parameter estimator is normally distributed withmean 0 and variance 6/T, where T is the sample size.

Answer: The estimated skewness parameter is -.938687. Following the analysis in Chapter Two, wecan reject the null of normality if:

Given T = 208, the calculated value of our test sta-tistic is 5.527 allowing us to reject the null of normal-ity with regard to the skewness parameter. Specifically,our test results show that our return series is asym-metric, i.e., skewed to the left tail.

Question #5: Report the estimated kurtosis param-eter. Test the null hypothesis, at the approximate 95%level of confidence, that the kurtosis of our returnsdata is 3; we employ the result that the sample kurto-sis parameter estimator is normally distributed withmean 3 and variance 24/T, where T is the sample size.

Answer: The estimated skewness parameter is3.75964. Following the analysis in Chapter Two, wecan reject the null of normality if:



Given T = 208, the calculated value of our test sta-tistic is 2.236, allowing us to reject the null of nor-mality with regard to the kurtosis parameter.Specifically, our test results show that our returns dis-plays excess kurtosis, i.e., fat tails relative to a normaldistribution.

Question #6: What do our skewness and kurtosistest results imply about the distribution of daily re-turns on the Dow 30 over the period 1980M1-1997M4?

Answer: Very simply, our returns data are non-nor-mally distributed. Specifically, our return data areskewed to the left and have fat tails relative to a nor-mal distribution. Accordingly, inference about stockreturns based upon the assumption of normality willproduce misleading results.

Finally, to see why testing for normality is an im-portant empirical issue, we will next show how theassumption of normality can be a powerful analysistool for the stock market.

Student Programming Questions

Question #7: What does the finding of excess kur-tosis imply about our results in Question #3 above?

Question #8: Explore alternative ways to graph ourreturn data using the SORITEC graphics utilities.

Which graph best represents the relative frequency ofthe return data?

Question #9: Try redoing the case with a differentsample period and see the “robustness” of the results.

A SORITEC program for this case:! soritec program to chapter two case one: are stock

rates! of return normally distributed?! access econdata.sdb using file buttoncopy fsdjclose econdatasymbols(full)use 1980m1 1997m4compute %fsdj = log(fsdj) - log(fsdj{-1})symbols(full)p%fsdj = %fsdj*100vector vecqq -10 -5 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 5 10freq (class=vecqq) p%fsdjsynopsis %fsdjsynopsis p%fsdj

Contact InformationThomas P. BundtDepartment of Computer Science and EngineeringOregon Graduate Institute of Science & TechnologyP.O. Box 91000Portland, Oregon [email protected]


Working Technology: Issues in the Design ofInformation Systems to Support Work Practices

Arnold Chandler

AbstractUnderstanding the implications of computer and telecommunication technologies for work and organizing requiresbalancing “materialism” and “agency” in theories of social change. Techno-rationalist assumptions often underlie“technological frames” of managers who commission the design of information systems within business organiza-tions to improve “efficiency” and eliminate “redundancy”. These conceptualizations, however, are materially deter-minist and focus on reifications of “system” and “process” that treat work, the foundation of organizing, as merely aset of discrete and identifiable tasks captured in a job description that can be automated or made supportable byinformation systems.

A “canonical” notion of work, therefore, is reified in the material assumptions embedded in new informationtechnologies. This representation of work, as it becomes embodied in system design, serves to constrain, obstruct, orotherwise undermine the noncanonical work practices responsible for carrying out the actual business of the organi-zation.

An alternative approach to conceptualizing work and technology, captured largely in the work ofethnomethodologists and especially in the work of Lucy Suchman, treats the interaction of people and informationsystems within working contexts as distinctly “situated”. Situated action is tied inextricably to the context in whichit occurs. Moreover, situated interactions with information systems in the course of work are often made meaningfulwithin an emergent “community of practice” that serves as a locus of learning and understanding that shapes thelived moment-to-moment experience of work life. Information system design, to support work as work is done, mustutilize representations of work that capture both its “visible” and “invisible” elements. To do this requires forms ofuser involvement and “participatory” or “cooperative” design that enable representations of work to be employed asreified “boundary objects” that can help translate between the work practices of intended system users and the workpractices of those who design the systems.

IntroductionIn his 1996 book, The Rise of the Network Society ,Manuel Castells marveled at the credibility given bythe media to the central claim set forth in a 1995 bookwritten by Jeremy Rifkin titled The End of Work: TheDecline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn ofthe Post-Market Era. He was critical of a major flawwith Rifkin’s theory which argued that computer andtelecommunications technology would lead to theelimination of “formal work” and the creation inAmerica of a “jobless society” (Castells, 1996). Rifkinwas announcing an impending world without workin a country whose economy, led by high-tech growth,had experienced the creation of 8 million new jobsfrom 1993 to 1996 (Castells, 1996). That such a claimcould gain currency in light of rather clear evidenceto the contrary is an illustration of the pervasive in-fluence that determinist theories of techno-socialchange have on popular thinking. Rifkin’s thesis of-fers a compelling illustration of materialist determin-ism writ large. He depicts computer technologies in

an abstract way —as uniformly substitutable for cer-tain types of labor (i.e. “automation” of discrete tasks)— and then generalizes upon this abstraction to as-cribe an immanent societal logic to the techno-socialchanges computers are to induce — such as the broad-scale elimination of all “formal work”. Treating “in-formation” technologies in this way is characteristicof a number of theories offering to explain the impli-cations of technology for social change, and especiallythe more popular theories concerning techno-socialchanges in work and organizing (Orlikowski and Bar-ley, 2000, p. 16-17).

This paper, echoing similar criticisms elsewhere(Kling, 2000) will elaborate a critique of such theo-ries calling for a more nuanced perspective concern-ing the relationship between technology and humanaction that balances the concepts of “agency” and“materialism”. It will argue that digital technologiesmust be understood as having material “constraints”and “affordances”, such as those imposed and allowedby electrical and software engineering, as well as “in-terpretive” malleability in use which in turn helps


shape how people use the technology in practicalworking situations. Therefore, digital technologiesmust be understood as both fixed and malleable andsubject to the shaping forces of important communi-ties of actors during phases of their requirementsspecification, design, production, implementationand, finally and most importantly, their use. The com-munities of actors ( e.g. managers, system analysts,designers, programmers, consultants, and users)within and around an organization interpret a tech-nological project through the frames of reference thatare shaped within their communities of practice.

Exploring the interchange between these commu-nities in the process of the creation and use of digitaltechnologies is where, this paper argues, the key todesigning technologies that better serve the wishes oftheir designers and the needs of their users can befound. Moreover, it is the starting point for betterunderstanding the dynamics of techno-social change.

To develop this argument, Section I of the paperwill explain why a balanced perspective with regardto “materialism” and “agency” is important. SectionII of the paper, titled “Process and Practice”, will ar-gue that work should be understood as being orga-nized into communities of “practice” where so-called“lateral ties” inform work practices carried outcollaboratively in “situated” contexts by individualworkers. Section III of the paper, “Representing ‘In-visible’ Work”, will expound further on the matters ofagency and materialism by exploring how conceptionsof work, or their “representations”, bear the markingsof those groups directly responsible for their formu-lation. The notion of “canonical”, or institutionallylegitimized, “visible” work practices will be contrastedwith that of “invisible”, or “noncanonical”, situatedwork practices that occupy the interstices between“official” descriptions of work and the daily demandsof the working environment.

Capturing this practical world in the representa-tions of work practice that become embodied in ma-terial digital technologies depends on howcommunities of practice, each with their own visibleand invisible practices, can translate and convey theirrespective tacit understandings about their work intoforms that other communities can intuitively grasp.

I. Technological and SocialChange: Balancing “Materialism”

and “Agency”Many popular theories assessing the implications ofinformation technologies for work tend, like The End

of Work, to privilege “materialism” over “agency” inhow they conceptualize techno-social change. Socialchanges are argued to proceed directly from the tech-nical properties of a particular technology such thatthe nature of work or the structure of an organiza-tion are transformed along identifiable dimensions apriori. Technology is assumed to act exogenously uponan organization or society to produce predictable di-rect “impacts” whose transformative logic is teleologi-cally driven (Fischer, 1992, pp. 1-32). The eliminationof formal work due to the ability of computers to au-tomate a set of discrete tasks is one such teleologicalargument. This determinist approach effaces the roleof “agents” whose actions serve to shape the actualdesign and use of technologies. “Agency” in this con-text, although subject to various treatments in thesociological literature (Taylor et. al., 2001, pp. 64-73),is to be understood as the capacity for choice and in-tentional action by individuals or groups. Humanagency with respect to digital technologies is reflectedin the fact that the specifics of an artifact’s technicaldesign are the materializations of a set of “choices”that subsequently shape but do not determine howthat artifact is used.

Two sets of theories that illustrate this type ofagency-effacing material determinism are those whichconcern the so-called “skilling” or “deskilling” of work.These contrasting sets of theories heavily privilege thematerial properties of technology over agency in ar-guing one of two propositions: 1) That informationtechnologies will render some human labor redun-dant, and will, therefore, “deskill” workers while in-creasing managerial control; or 2) That informationtechnologies will generally improve worker skills inthe form of “upskilling” adding to the autonomy ofthe worker vis-à-vis managers (Barley, 1988). Both ofthese theoretical traditions feature a teleological bentthat posits social change induced by technologicalchange as having a clear and uniform trajectory ei-ther to the detriment of or in favor of worker au-tonomy and power. Organizational studies theoristStephen Barley, who is critical of such teleologicaldeterminism, has noted that both “skilling” and“deskilling” theoretical traditions have relied on se-lective evidence to support their claims by “artificiallyhomogenizing both technical and socialdiversity”(Barley, 1988). Neither tradition has ac-counted for, and has avoided acknowledging, instanceswhere an identical technology produces different so-cial changes in work and organizing across differentorganizations and, conversely, for instances where dif-ferent technologies tend to produce the same socialchanges within different organizations.

Working Technology: Issues in the Design of Information Systems to Support Work Practices, Arnold Chandler


Deterministic theorizing of this sort persists largelybecause it serves an agenda of developing generaliz-able theories of techno-social change that reflects theinfluence of organizational studies on informationtechnology research (Orlikowski and Barley, 2000).In service of generalizability, organizational theorieshave traditionally conceptualized technology ab-stractly and treated it as a material cause of socialchange. They have tended, therefore, to overlook theimportance of “agency” in shaping both the designand use of technologies (Orlikowski and Barley, 2000,p. 6). For example, contingency theorists in organiza-tional studies have argued that different types of tech-nologies are “consistently associated with differentapproaches to organizing,” such that the contingencyresearcher’s agenda became to “devise a set of prin-ciples about (if not an actual theory of) technologyand organization that would hold across all organi-zations and all technologies” (Orlikowski and Barley,2000). The pursuit of an encompassing theory of thissort to explain social outcomes across all contexts leadsultimately to a dead end. It fails empirically becauseit must assume that technological artifacts have auniform logic in their development, application, anduse across all social contexts. Such an assumption,however, is sufficiently contradicted merely by theclear diversity of implementations of any particularinformation technology alone. Theory that exhibitssimilar tendencies towards determinism, by abstract-ing away from the technical specifics of design or ig-noring the role of agency in shaping technologicalchange, include the recent body of “media richnesstheory”. This type of research “tries to explain indi-viduals’ choices of communication media in terms ofa medium’s properties, for instance, its bandwidth,whether transmission is synchronous or asynchro-nous, and so on” (Orlikowski and Barley, 2000, p. 8).As such, despite the fact that it moves closer to theconcrete in its treatment of the actual design proper-ties of the technology, media richness theory’s desirefor generality endorses a determinism that fails topredict what choices people actually make in differ-ent contexts. By attempting to generalize on a com-munication medium’s technical properties as thematerial cause of social action, media richness theorytreats technology with less abstraction but neverthe-less preserves a determinist outlook.

A more recent theoretical approach in organiza-tional studies that has moved away from materialisticdeterminism towards the inclusion of “agency” intheories about the nature of technological changeleads to a better balance of the two concepts . Thisapproach, loosely described as the “social construc-tion of technology” (Bijker et. al., 1994), views tech-

nological artifacts as constituted substantially as “so-cial objects”. In other words, the interests and perspec-tives of individuals and groups in an organization arethe source of “technological frames”(Orlikowski andGash, 1994) or “workplace visions” (Kling andZmudimas, 1994) that shape the meaning in designand use of information systems. To elaborate, WandaOrlikowski et. al. define “technological frames” andwhat they suggest for the social shaping of technol-ogy:

We use the term technological frame to identifythat subset of members’ organizational framesthat concern the assumptions, expectations, andknowledge they use to understand technologyin organizations. This includes not only the na-ture and role of the technology itself, but thespecific conditions, applications, and conse-quences of that technology in particular con-texts. (Orlikowski and Gash, 1994, p. 178)

These technological frames, Orlikowski continues,

have powerful effects in that people’s assump-tions, expectations, and knowledge about thepurpose, context, importance, and role of tech-nology will strongly influence the choices maderegarding the design and use of those technolo-gies [Noble 1986; Orlikowski 1992a; Pinch andBijker 1987]. Because technologies are socialartifacts, their material form and function willembody their sponsors’ and developers’ objec-tives, values, interests, and knowledge of thattechnology. For example, views of how workshould be done, what the division of laborshould be, how much autonomy employeesshould have, and how integrated or decoupledproduction units should be are all assumptionsthat are consciously or implicitly built into in-formation technology by systems planners anddesigners. (Orlikowski and Gash, 1994, p. 179)

Because technological frames form within delim-ited communities of practitioners (i.e. mangers, con-sultants, IT technical staff, software developers, clerksand professional workers) and because technologicalartifacts come to embody a set of “choices” by actorsrelevant to their design, conflicts or inconsistenciesin the technological frames between communities ofpractice arrayed relative to the design process (i.e.managers/sponsors, developers/designers, and profes-sionals/users) may then imply serious differences be-tween anticipated and actual use. Users’ knowledge



of their own work practices, or perceptions of the in-tent behind a technology’s introduction, may be instark contrast to the understanding held by eithermanagers or designers. This may lead to a situationwhere a technological artifact is interpreted differentlyin use and possibly invoked at cross-purposes acrosssocial groups within the organization. To illustrate,Orlikowski notes how “technologists” may have an“engineering perspective of technology, treating it asa tool to be designed, manipulated, and deployed toaccomplish a particular task”. Managers on the otherhand, may have a “more strategic understanding oftechnology, expecting it to facilitate certain ways ofdoing business and providing financial returns”. Bothof these frames, moreover, may be in contrast or, per-haps, contradiction with “users” who “may take a morefocused or instrumental view, expecting immediate,local and task-specific benefits” (Orlikowski and Gash,1994, p. 180). These incongruent technological framesmay go a long way toward explaining why technolo-gies fail to achieve the results anticipated in a particu-lar context.

The concept of technological frames usefully inte-grates an appreciation of the role of agency in howtechnology is interpreted and meaningfully appliedwithin an organization to demonstrate that techno-social change is substantially more complicated thanthe circumscribed view material determinism allows.It is important, however, as Stephen Barley rightlypoints out, not to take “social construction” of tech-nology to such an extreme that technological changeis viewed as socially determined (Barley, 1988). Thematerial properties of a technology do matter in tech-nological change just as social factors such as “tech-nological frames” are important. A balancedperspective with regard to technological change mustaccount for how both agency and materialism inter-act to shape work and organizing. Agency must beunderstood to operate through both the set of design“choices” that come to embody any material technol-ogy as well as the multiple ways in which that tech-nology may be applied in use. Correspondingly, atechnology’s material technical properties must beunderstood to influence agency by providing a set of“affordances” for use as well as imposing a set of “con-straints” on use (Norman, 1988). Understanding boththe fixity and malleability of information technologyrequires weaving together “human action and choice,the functions and features of specific technologies, andthe contexts of a technology’s use in a way that at-tends to the micro-dynamics of situated practice(Orlikowski and Barley, 2000, p. 12). The next sec-tion of this paper will explore these “micro-dynamics

of situated practice” to unveil how “situated” workpractices are the proper focus of analysis for under-standing how information technologies are implicatedin techno-social change. This perspective is shown tobe in marked contrast to the techno-rationalist ap-proach to information technologies, which tends toobscure actual work practices in the name of system-driven notions of “process”.

II. “Process” and “Practice” “Techno-rationalist” assumptions and materialist-driven “technological frames” held by technologistsor managers encourage reasoning about work andorganizing in terms of abstract reifications of “pro-cess”. “Systems” thinking informs a process-basedmethod for interpreting how interdependencies be-tween functional competencies within an organiza-tion are managed. Such as perspective has beencharacterized as the “organizational view” of work-ing activity in which, as Patricia Sachs explains,

work is seen as a discrete set of tasks that serve ahighly focused purpose (creating the productthrough a specified set of business functions).The range of activities that workers must em-ploy to actually get a job done, however, extendsbeyond the strict limits of a task into the lessvisible and more complex world of problem-finding, problem-solving, deciphering, decod-ing, understanding, and collaborating. Theseaspects of labor involve high-level thinkingwithin particular work worlds. (Sachs, 1995: p.42)

An organizational view, in contrast to an “activity-based view”, glosses the details of actual working ac-tivity for the sake of constructing a “global” view ofthe end-to-end process of production. For that rea-son, it deprecates the importance of “knowing” inworking activity that is indispensable to troubleshoot-ing problems that arise in all work places. Such activ-ity, referred to as “exception handling” (Klein andDelarocas, 1999), deals with the problems, break-downs, and malfunctioning of processes that requireingenuity and resourcefulness within a communityof knowledgeable actors. This depends on localizedunderstandings of working environments where work“practices” are the actual means by which the busi-ness of an organization is carried out. In other words,there is a distinction between “workflow”, the process-based depiction of working activity, and “the flow ofwork” which is filled with contingencies, interrup-



tions, mistakes, corrections and the providing andenlisting of help to and from others (Randall et. al.,1994).

John Seely Brown provides an insightful descrip-tion of the distinction between a “process” focusedreification of organizational dynamics and one thataddresses the issue of “practice” in an argument heposes surveying the pitfalls of “business processreengineering” (BPR). He explains that “business pro-cesses”, as they are conceived in reengineering theo-ries, are well defined and feature clearly specifiableinputs and outputs whose processing proceeds in alinear fashion. Under such a view the “longitudinallinks” between each stage in the process are given pri-macy, while the “lateral” ties among people engagedin similar functional competencies, or “stages” in theprocess, are regarded as non-value adding and there-fore not an area of analytical focus in reengineeringdesign (Brown, 2000). Inadequate attention, therefore,is directed toward information flows within the in-ner-workings of the process stages themselves. Al-though process-based conceptions of work andorganizing have proven successful in operational ar-eas like procurement, shipping, receiving, warehous-ing, fulfillment and billing, they are demonstrably lesssuccessful for improving activities such as manage-ment, marketing, research and development. In theseareas “life is less linear; and inputs and outputs areless well defined; and information is less ‘targeted’”(Brown, 2000). Moreover, for these types of work, aswell as other functional competencies like customerservice and sales, interpreting and understandingmeaning and knowledge are critical activities (Sachs,1995). The members of these groups, or “communi-ties of practice,” (Wenger, 1998; Brown and Duguid,1991) must toe the tension-filled line between the“demands of process and the needs of practice” wherethe “process-focused need for uniform organizationalinformation” is pitted against “the practice-basedstruggle for locally coherent meaning” (Brown, 2000).

Ignoring this reality results in an obscurant sim-plification of the actual workings of an organizationand increases the need for the development of“workarounds” among workers who confront thedysfunctional impediments to working activity cre-ated by information systems designed to support anabstract process. “Tunnel visions” of process, featuredin design methodologies like structured “informationarchitectures”, have been unsuccessful largely because,“enterprise models of information-types, uses, andresponsibilities are too broad and arcane for nontech-nical people to comprehend — and they can take yearsto build” (Davenport, 1994, p. 42). They fail, there-fore, to reflect how workers actually use information.

Rather the information used by different practicegroups within an organization should be seen as hav-ing variable “meanings” that fit appropriately into eachseparate context. Thomas Davenport illustrates thisnotion in the following excerpt:

No matter how simple or basic a unit of informa-tion may seem, there can be valid disagreements aboutits meaning. At Digital Equipment Corporation, forexample, a “sale” to the indirect marketing organiza-tion happened when a distributor or reseller ordereda computer; but to direct marketing, the sale occurredonly when the end customer took delivery. Evenwithin direct marketing, there were differences inopinion: salespeople recorded a sale when the orderwas replaced, manufacturing and logistics when theproduct was delivered, and finance when it was paidfor. (Davneport, 1994, p. 44)

The fact that “information” is variable in its “mean-ing” to users within an organization defies a simpli-fied understanding of information systems using“process” as the central analytical precept. A strivingtowards “information globalism”(Davenport, 1994),where an effort is made to force information intouniform categories company-wide, should be viewedas problematic when it involves attempting to inte-grate, in a top-down fashion, the information of “lo-calized” groups of practitioners for whom certainmeanings may be locally specific and highly valuable.Hence, there exists an inherent tension between “in-formation globalism” and “information particular-ism” that marks the tension between “process” and“practice” in how work is “represented” in the designof information systems.

“Representing” work involves abstracting awayfrom the specifics of end user work practices to cre-ate representational artifacts employed in system de-sign practice. The next section of the paper will takeup this issue and will warn against relying on abstrac-tions of work practice, like “job descriptions” ormanager’s descriptions of employee work roles, as thebasis for system design choices. Rather, it is impor-tant to uncover “noncanonical” or “invisible” work“practices” that constitute the “situated” action re-sponsible for carrying out the day-to-day, moment-by-moment, business of the organization.

III. Representing “Invisible” WorkIn her landmark book, Plans and Situated Actions(1987), Lucy Suchman contrasted the “planningmodel” of human action with an understanding ofhuman action as “situated” to illustrate the errone-ous assumptions, prevalent in cognitive science theo-



ries at the time, that underlie methods for designing“intelligent” computer systems. The “planning model”of human action was built on the premise that hu-mans devised, in advance of action, “plans” whichsubsequently guided that action in particular con-texts. Information systems designers, therefore, hadonly to make these deductively derived “plans” thebasis for designing intelligent systems to be used bythose human actors. In contrast, Suchman argued thataction is not planned but distinctly “situated” — lo-cated inextricably within a space and time and con-figured within a set of circumstances — squarelyconfronting previously held assumptions about hu-man-machine interaction. She explained that

Every human tool relies upon, and reifies, someunderlying conception of the activity that it isdesigned to support. As a consequence, oneway to view the artifact is as a test on the limitsof the underlying conception. In this book Iexamine an artifact built on a planning modelof human action. The model treats a plan assomething located in the actor’s head, whichdirects his or her behavior. In contrast, I arguethat artifacts built on the planning model con-fuse plans with situated actions and recom-mend instead a view of plans as formulationsof antecedent conditions and consequences ofaction that account for action in a plausibleway. As ways of talking about action, plans assuch neither determine the actual course ofsituated action nor adequately reconstruct it.(Suchman, 1987, p.3)

Contrary to the presuppositions of the planningmodel, Suchman proposed that we look at “situatedaction:”

I have introduced the term situated action. Thatterm underscores the view that every course ofaction depends in essential ways upon its ma-terial and social circumstances. Rather than at-tempting to abstract action away from itscircumstances and represent it as a rationalplan, the approach is to study how people usetheir circumstances to achieve intelligent ac-tion. The basic premise is twofold: first, thatwhat traditional behavioral sciences take to becognitive phenomena have an essential rela-tionship to a publicly available, collaborativelyorganized world of artifacts and actions, andsecondly, that the significance of artifacts andactions, and the methods by which their sig-nificance is conveyed, have an essential rela-

tionship to their particular concrete circum-stances. (Suchman, 1987, p. 50)

Suchman’s argument revealed an important in-sight about how human action is to be understood asa foundation for the design of technological artifactssuch as computer-based information systems. Ifworking action is not planned, but “situated”, then anapproach to designing systems to support work shouldbe addressed, as Barley noted above, “to the micro-dynamics of situated practices”. It should be addressedto the exigent actions of workers rather than abstractstereotypes of work roles. However, because techno-logical artifacts are reifications of a set of choices,which include assumptions about the “action” in-volved in work, they may not, for various reasons,support work how work is actually done. In otherwords, they may not support situated work “practices”.How those choices and assumptions are constitutedto guide the design of information systems is reflectedin the work “practices” of system designers themselves.

Therefore, exploring the work practices of design-ers is a way of unveiling the manner by which certainassumptions about the work practices of so-called“users” become embodied in system designs. This isat the heart of another of Suchman’s discussions ofthe use of “representations” in the work practices ofsystem designers (Suchman, 1995). The importanceof grasping the representational nature of softwareconstruction and the role of representation in creat-ing the artifacts for the design process itself cannotbe overstated. Creating software is, at its heart, a pro-cess of representation. Paul Dourish explains,

Software design and development is fundamen-tally a representational process. Computer pro-grams are formalised representations of complexbehaviour, and they achieve this behaviourthrough the manipulation of data structureswhich are themselves representations of entitiesbeyond the scope of the software itself. Looking“under the hood” provides us with no escapefrom the representational. Programming lan-guages are mapped onto processor instructionsets (more representations) which are imple-mented using digital (representational) logic.(Dourish, 1998)

When it comes to the computerization of work,representations, Suchman contends, are “interpreta-tions in the service of particular interests and pur-poses, created by actors specifically positioned withrespect to the work represented (Suchman, 1995).Much like maps are not really the land and geogra-



phy they represent, representations of work in systemdesign are not work practices, but selective depictionsof those work practices that reflect the perspective ofthe representations’ author(s). Simply put, “the prob-lem with most design efforts is that their representa-tions are artificial and idealized accounts of action asit should occur from the point of view of someonenot doing the action” (Jackson et. al., 2001).

Fundamentally, therefore, representations serveinterests, whether those of managers, designers, tech-nologists, or some other select groups of users suchas professionals. They stereotype behavior so that itmay be encoded in technological artifacts for the pur-pose of controlling work. For that reason, how repre-sentations of work come to be constituted, namely, inthe work practices of designers, has determinativeimplications for the reified vision of work that a tech-nological artifact will embody. This becomes a prob-lem when information system designers fail to obtaina densely textured understanding of the actual workpractices of individuals and instead rely on “canoni-cal” descriptions of work. Canonical work practices(Brown and Duguid, 1991) encompass such represen-tations as “job descriptions” or formalized work“plans” which serve as reifications of “roles” that havebeen institutionally legitimized within theorganization’s formal authority structure.

These generally described “roles”, or abstract de-pictions, fail to account for what Barley earlier de-scribed as the “micro-dynamics of situated practice”.They don’t provide a “thick description” (Geertz,1973) of how “actual practice involves tricky interpo-lations between abstract accounts and situated de-mands” that include, “improvised strategies that[workers] deploy to cope with the clash between pre-scriptive documentation” and “the changing condi-tions of work and world” (Brown and Duguid, 1991).Hence, canonical work descriptions, which may in-volve a Tayloristic decomposition of work into tasksand sub-tasks, provide, first, a weak resource in theactual practices or “action” of individuals within situ-ated contexts, and, second, a poor resource for repre-sentational artifacts employed in the work practicesof system designers who are designing technologiesto support actual work. Rather, designers should relyon more detailed descriptions of “noncanonical” or“invisible” work practices to inform system design.Noncanonical work practices should be viewed asbeing located within “communities of practice”(Wenger, 1998) that are composed of the “lateral ties”that link those similarly situated in a stage of an orga-nizational business “process” described by Brown ear-lier. It is within these communities that meaning is“negotiated” and socially shared tacit understandings

are developed through work practices. Learning,within these communities, is a “shared history of par-ticipation” that is the basis for sense-making in ashared enterprise (Wenger, 1998; Sachs, 1995). Thesesocial processes define a “community of practice” thatmust reconcile the canonical demands of the com-pany with the exigencies of “situated” practice.

Designing information systems to support thesesorts of “situated” noncanonical work practices re-quires understanding how work is actually done ratherthan stereotypical representations of work based uponits perceived location within business “processes”. Itis important to note, returning to Suchman’s discus-sion of situated action above, that simply asking work-ers what it is they do is not enough to grasp thesituated nature of their working activity. Worker de-scriptions of their own working activity constitute“plans” that, according to Suchman’s argument, serveas post-hoc rationalizations of activity that gloss theconcrete reality of action anchored to a particular setof circumstances (Suchman, 1987).

Understanding situated work practice, therefore,requires the integration of some means of carefulobservation of actual working activity into the workpractices of system designers (Crabtree et. al., 1998).Toward this end, an ethnomethodological theoreticalperspective applied in conjunction with ethnographyas a field research tool can provide the foundationalbasis for transforming system design practices alonga course where “thick descriptions” of user work prac-tices are the basis for creating information systems(Button and Dourish, 1999). The representations usedto depict these work practices in system design mustbe critically examined on an ongoing basis. The pro-cess requires, as Suchman explains,

deepening our resources for conceptualizing theintimate relations between work, representa-tions, and the politics of organizations. Morespecifically for system design, this argumentimplies a reflexive engagement in our work asdesigners both with images and accounts ofwork practices that are provided to use by orga-nization members and with those that we our-selves create and use. The aim is a design practicein which representations of work are taken notas proxies for some independently existent or-ganizational processes but as part of the fabricof meanings within and out of which all work-ing practices—our own and others’—are made.(Suchman, 1995)




In fact, Morten Kyng, an early proponent of “co-operative design”, has argued that end users must bedirectly involved in the design process with hands-onexplorations in the form of “mock-ups” and “proto-types” (Kyng, 1995, p. 50). This involvement, he ar-gues, should extend to the practice of creating theartifacts for representing work practices themselves.This is because, as Kyng emphasizes, the work of us-ers cannot be effectively mediated through represen-tations without “being frozen at the level of explicitunderstandings” where substantial “tacit” (Nonaka,1995) knowledge of work practices is obscured. Tacitknowledge, as opposed to explicit knowledge, can becritical to working practice but unconscious to theknower. In other words, people may not be fully awareof what they actually know about the activities inwhich they engage (Nonaka, 1995).

To share these latent understandings, therefore, notonly must work practices be studied minutely, butworkers themselves must be involved in directly con-structing and modifying the “representations” of workused in system design practice. Kyng explains that thisrequires developing a “shared practice” in which notonly does the designer attempt to grasp the end users’noncanonical work practices by acquiring an“insider’s” perspective, but the designers themselvesmust open up their own practices at the periphery toallow users to gain an inside understanding of design-ers’ work practices (Kyng, 1995). The representationsthat emerge out of this shared practice can serve as“boundary objects”, or reifications, around whichEtienne Wenger explains, “communities of practicecan organize their interconnections” (Wenger, 1998).

A boundary object, in this case representations ofwork constructed out of a shared practice, can serveas a vehicle for communicating the tacit understand-ings of the work practices of end users into terms andforms amenable to the tacit understandings impli-cated in the work practices of system designers andvice versa. Traversing the boundaries of these com-munities and their tacitly held understandings of theirown work is the central dilemma in information sys-tems design to support working activity (Suchman,2000). Morten Kyng provides some practical meth-odological tips for enabling this type of exchange bydistinguishing between “representations of the systembeing designed” and “representations of work” thatare adjusted and readjusted by both designers andusers in a shared practice of system design. His re-search is a promising avenue worth exploring for morepractical specifics in system design strategy that arebeyond the scope of this paper (Kyng, 1995).

III. ConclusionThe arguments in this paper cohere around three cen-tral claims. The first is that an understanding of theimplications of information and communicationtechnologies for changes in work and organizing re-quires a perspective which balances both “material-ism” and “agency” to acknowledge that, while “agency”shapes technology in both its design and use, the “ma-terial” properties of technology influence agency inuse by providing “affordances” and imposing “con-straints”. This claim has important ramifications forthe second central claim of the paper, which arguesthat “techno-rationalist” accounts of work and orga-nizing as “process”, within which material determin-ism often finds much expression, fail to capture thereality of work as “situated” practices in which “plans”or “canonical” work steps are but weak resources inactual human action.

Understanding “situated”, “noncanonical” workpractices requires supplanting a “process-based” viewof work with a “practice-based” one to allow “agency”to become more transparent for designing systems tosupport actual work practices. Agency or “situatedaction” is implicated both in the design of informa-tion technologies—system designer work practices —as well as in the use of information technologies —end user work practices. Reconciling these two typesof agency to produce technologies which allow moreenabling “affordances” rather than more dysfunc-tional “constraints” is the central mission of “coop-erative design” as described by Morten Kyng.

The nature of this “cooperative” design is the es-sence of the third central claim. For designers to cre-ate information systems that effectively supportworking activity, it is necessary that end-users anddesign practitioners “share a practice” that can serveto translate not only the “explicit” but the valuable“tacit” understandings between workers and design-ers who inhabit two different “communities of prac-tice”. Mutually constructing representations of workas “boundary objects” between these two communi-ties appears the most promising conceptual approachto effective design. In sum, understanding the role ofinformation technology within organizations meansrecognizing agency in techno-social change, appreci-ating the importance of a “practice-based” view ofwork, and identifying how the interchange between“communities of practice” is vital to effectively “rep-resenting” working action in the construction of tech-nological artifacts.



BibliographyBarley, Stephen R. (1988) “Technology, Power and the Social

Organization of Work: Towards a Pragmatic Theory of Skillingand Deskilling.” Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Vol-ume 6, pp.33-80.

Bijker, Wiebe E., Hughes, Thomas P., & Pinch, Trevor F. (Eds.)(1994) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: NewDirections in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Brown, John Seely and Duguid, Paul (1991) “OrganizationalLearning and Communities-of Practice: Toward a Unified Viewof Working, Learning and Innovation.” Organization Science,2(1).

Brown, John Seely (2000) 3/1/2000 “Practice Makes Process.” CIOMagazine taken from http://www.cio.com/archive/030100_process.html on 3/15/2001.

Button, Graham and Dourish, Paul (1999) “OnTechnomethodology: Foundational Relationships BetweenEthnomethodology and System Design”, Working Paper, XeroxPARC.

Castells, Manuel (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. Malden,MA; Blackwell Publishers.

Crabtree, Andy, Nichols, David, O’brien, Jon, Rouncefield, Mark& Twidale, Michael (1998) “The Contribution ofEthnomethodologically-Informed Ethnography to the Processof Designing Digital Libraries”. Technical Report CSEG/5/98,Computing Department, Lancaster Unviersity.

Davenport, Thomas H. (1994) “Saving IT’s Soul: Human-Cen-tered Information Management.” Harvard Business Review, MA,Harvard University Press.

Dourish, Paul “Reconsidering Software Representations”, Work-ing Paper, Apple Computer Inc. Taken from http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jpd/publications/representation.html onOctober 1, 2001.

Fischer, Claude (1992) America Calling: A Social History of theTelephone to 1940.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Geertz, Clifford (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York:Basic Books.

Jackson, Michele H., Poole, Marshal S., Kuhn, Tim (2001) “TheSocial Construction of Technology Studies of the Workplace”.In Lievrouw and Livingstone (eds.) Handbook of New Media.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Klein, Mark and Delarocas, Crysanthos (1999) “A KnowledgeBased Approach to Handling Exceptions in Workflow Systems,”Working Paper, Center for Coordination Science, MIT SloanSchool of Management.

Kling, Rob and Zmuidzinas, Mary (1994) “Technology, Ideol-ogy, and Social Transformation: The Case of Computerizationand Work Organization,” taken from http://www.slis.indiana.edu/kling on 4/01/2001.

Kling, Rob & Crawford, Holly & Rosenbaum, Howard & Sawyer,Steve, & Weisband, Suzanne (2000, August) Learning from So-cial Informatics: Information and Communication Technologiesin Human Contexts. Center For Social Informatics. School ofLibrary and Information Sciences, Indiana University.

Kyng, Morten (1995) “Making Representations Work.” Commu-nications of the ACM. 38(9):46-55.

Nonaka, Ikujiro (2000) “The Knowledge-Creating Company.”Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management Boston,Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

Norman, Donald A. (1988) The Psychology of Everyday Things.New York: Basic Books.

Orlikowski, Wanda J. and Barley, Stephen R. (2000) “Technologyand Institutions:What Can Research on Information Technol-ogy and Research on Organizations Learn From Each Other?”,Working Paper, Center for Work, Technology and Organiza-tion; Department of Management Science and Engineering,Stanford University.

Orlikowski Wanda J. & Gash, Debra C. (1994) “TechnologicalFrames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organi-zations.” ACM Transaction on Information Systems 12(2): 174-207.

Randall, D., Bentley, R. and Twidale, M. (1994, October) “Eth-nography and Collaborative Systems Development II: Practi-cal Application in a Commercial Context”. Paper presented atthe biennial conference of Computer Supported CooperativeWork, Chapel Hill, NC.

Sachs, Patricia (1995, September) “Transforming Work: Collabo-ration, Learning and Design”, Communications of the ACM, Vol.38(9).

Suchman, Lucy (1987) Plans and Situated Actions: The Problemof Human-Machine Communication. New York, CambridgeUniversity Press.

Suchman, Lucy (1995) “Making Work Visible.” Communicationsof the ACM, September 38(9): 56-64.

Suchman, Lucy (1999) “Located Accountabilities in TechnologyProduction.” In Mackenzie, D. and Wacjman, J. (Eds.) The So-cial Shaping of Technology, Second Edition. Buckingham, UK:Open University Press, pp. 258-265.

Taylor, James R., Groleau, Carole, Heaton, Lorna, & Van Every,Elizabeth (2001)The Computerization of Work: A Communica-tion Perspective. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Wenger, Etienne (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Mean-ing and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Contact InformationArnold ChandlerGolden Gate [email protected]


Appendix: Golden Gate School of Technology andIndustry Faculty and Staff

Earl N. Austin, Associate Professor, Hotel, Restaurant,and Tourism Management Program.B.S., University of DenverM.B.A., Golden Gate UniversityProfessional focus areas: Consultant to ATA @ Brazilfor Contract Food Service; Import/Export of sous videproducts from France, NFA; Contributing Editor toCHRIE Educator, a refereed journal.Courses: Food, Beverage & Labor Cost Controls; Hu-man Relations & Motivation; Worldwide Tourism;Special Event Tourism; Institutional Management,Club & Resort Management.

Constance M. Beutel, Associate Professor, Chair, MSe-Commerce, Co-Chair, Telecommunications Man-agement.B.A., University of MinnesotaM.P.A Golden Gate University, TelecommunicationsEd.D., University of San FranciscoProfessional focus areas: Futures, Adult Higher Edu-cation, Women and Leadership, Enriching teachingand learning through technologies, International andMulticultural Education with special emphasis in Par-ticipatory Educational Return on Investment, Corpo-rate professional education and development,Scenario Planning.Courses: Technology & Society; The Futures of Tele-communications; Professional Practice in e-Com-merce; Science, Technology & Cultural Change.Selected Publications, Presentations, Papers: Knowledgeis Power: Women as Leaders @ Stanford; CorporateBroadcast: Imagine your Future; Worklife to Lifework:The role of Self-Directed Education, with Mae JeanGo, Ph.D.; Reaching Learners through Telecommu-nications; Longman Group, UK Ltd, 1994; Confer-ence Chair, Corporate Universities Conference,International Quality and Productivity Center; Pre-senter, Quality Assureance in Distance Education,Open University, Cambridge University, England;Radio interview, KQED Forum: The ChangingWorkforce; Co-author: Participatory Research, A Dia-logue for Action.

Anne Carlisle, Contract Administrator.B.A., Lake Erie CollegeM.A., Case Western Reserve UniversityPh.D., Case Western Reserve University

Assistant Professor of English at Case Western ReserveUniversity, Pennsylvania State University, Florida KeysCommunity College.Professional focus areas: Communications consultant toindustry; Executive Director for trade associations;Public Relations Director for the hospitality industry.Selected Publications, Presentations, Papers: Publishedwidely in magazines as feature writer and editor; Text-books and topselling seminar delivered nationally onthe subject of business/technical writing.

Min Chiang, Adjunct Professor.B.A., Tunghai University, TaiwanM.A., University of WashingtonM.S., Ph.D. candidate, Illinois Institute of Technology.Manager, Network Design, TransAmerica InformationServices.

Cathi Colin, Chair, Database and Web programs.B.A., Brooklyn CollegeM.A., St. Johns UniversityM.S., San Francisco State UniversityPh.D., UC Santa CruzAreas of Specialization: Scientific and data visualiza-tion; object oriented programming languages; designand analysis of algorithms; instructional technology;database and web development.Courses: Fundamental Programming Concepts UsingJava; Data Structures, Simulation and Modeling; UnixProgramming; Operating Systems Concepts.

Miro Costa, Associate Professor of Information Sys-tems; Chair, Information Systems Department.B.S., M.S., Rio de Janeiro Federal University, BrazilM.S., University of TexasPh.D., University of TexasAreas of Specialization: Artificial Intelligence Appli-cations in Business and Statistical Databases. Advisorfor the Information Systems concentration in theDoctor of Business Administration (DBA) Program.Active member of the San Francisco Institute of Financeand Technology. Author of articles in Management In-formation Systems. Consulting experience in privateand federal organizations in Brazil and in the USA.Courses: Artificial Intelligence; Decision Support Sys-tems; Database Management Systems; Systems Analy-sis & Design.


Gary Crutchfield, Adjunct Professor of InformationSystems.B.S., M.S., Illinois Institute of TechnologyAreas of Specialization: Java and Linux. Consultant tocompanies using Java and Linux to develop web-basedapplications.Courses: Client-Server and Distributed Objects, Op-erating Systems Concepts.

Bob Fulkerth, Associate Professor of Information Sys-tems.B.A., M.A., Chico State UniversityEd.D., University of California at BerkeleyAreas of Specialization: Technology; Communications;Instructional Technology and Training. Recipient,Golden Apple Teaching Award, 1995. Author/pre-senter of articles and presentations on technology,diversity, and online instructional design. Design andteach online Business Writing courses. Design andteach multimedia courses.Courses: Management Information Systems; Com-puter Applications for Business Communication;Designing and Deploying Databases for the WorldWide Web; Doctoral Writing & Research.

James W. Koerlin, Associate Professor, Telecommu-nications Management and Dean, School of Technol-ogy and Industry.B.A., San Francisco State UniversityM.B.A., Golden Gate, UniversityPh.D., Walden UniversityAreas of Specialization: Telecommunications Manage-ment.Courses: Telecommunications Management; Telecom-munications Technology & Society; Corporate Tele-communications Strategy; Operations Management.

John Moreno, Chair of Information Technology, Sili-con Valley Region.B.A., University of ConnecticutM.Eng., Yale UniversityAreas of Specialization: Technology and InformationManagement, Web Operations Management.Courses: Electronic Commerce, Computers for SmallBusinesses, Statistics.

John T. Self, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Chair,Hotel, Restaurant, and Tourism Management Pro-gram.B.S., Auburn UniversityM.Ed., University of North TexasPh.D., University of Alabama

Areas of Specialization: Management retention; Cus-tomer service, and Food and Beverage Operations;Expert witness on cases concerning hospitality man-agement liability; Workshops on management coach-ing; Weekly online columns on customer service forNation’s Restaurant News and The Sideroad.Courses: Hospitality Law; Computer Operations; Glo-bal Trends.

Roger Smith, Co-Chair Telecommunications Chair,Technology Management Programs, Director, Corpo-rate Programs, Adjunct Associate Professor.B.S., San Diego State UniversityM.S., Golden Gate UniversityAreas of Specialization: Multimedia, Web Page Devel-opment, Web Page and Database Integration, Tele-communications Management.Courses: Multimedia and Wireless CommunicationsTechnology, Developing and Deploying Databases onthe World Wide Web.

Lynette C. Webb, Faculty, Computer Information Sys-tems.B.A., University of PennsylvaniaM. A., Golden Gate UniversityCourses: Beginning HTML and Web Pages, AdvancedHTML and JavaScript, Introduction to Web PageDesign, Effective Web Searching.

Rudiger Wysk, Assistant Professor, School of Technol-ogy and Industry, Chair, Information Technology,Sacramento.B.S. EE Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grandedo Sul, BrazilB.A. BPA Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul,BrazilM.S. IS Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, BrazilPh.D. MIS University of ArizonaExperience: systems analysis & design, project man-agement, and IS planning in public sector; training/consulting in private and public sectors; stint with asoftware house; junior partner in 2 start-ups; beforeteaching at University of Arizona, Northern ArizonaUniversity, and University of Baltimore, taught at threemajor universities in Brazil and at IBM’s LASRI.Articles: Systems Analysis & Design, Knowledge Sys-tems, Computer Supported Meeting Environments,and Management of IS.Areas of Specialization: Knowledge Systems/Manage-ment, Systems Analysis and Design, Computer Sup-ported Meeting Environments.Courses: Systems Analysis & Design and e-Commerce.

Appendix


ISSN 1528-1256

Golden Gate University536 Mission StreetSan Francisco CA 94105

,!7HB5C8-bcfgaf!

Documents

The Business, Education and Technology Journal