CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 450Information Systems Theories and ImplementationUsability and User Interface DesignPersonal Information Management and User Behavior

Office procedure as practical action: models of work and system design

Open access
Suchman, Lucy A.·1983·ACM Transactions on Information Systems
DOI 10.1145/357442.357445
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The design of office technology relies upon underlying conceptions of human organization and action.The goal of building office information systems requires a representation of office work and its relevant objects.The concern of this paper is that although system designers recognize the centrality of procedural tasks in the office, they tend to ignore the actual work involved in accomplishing those tasks.A perspicuous instance of work in an accounting office is used to recommend a new line of research into the practical problems of office work, and to suggest preliminary implications of that research for office systems design.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/357442.357445

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many scholars have provided empirical evidence of both change and variability in organizational routines.

    “Many scholars have provided empirical evidence of both change and variability in organizational routines (e.g., Suchman, 1983; Miner, 1990; Pentland and Rueter, 1994; Feldman, 2000; Naduzzo, Rocco, and Warglien, 2000; Edmondson, Bohmer, and Pisano, 2001; Pentland, 2003).”

    From Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change (2003) · cites this paper as Suchman, 1983

    Section 2 describes an empirical case study of office work, and section 4 concludes that workers determine a procedure’s meaning according to the particulars of each case. This supports variability in how routines are carried out. The paper does not provide empirical evidence that organizational routines change over time. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The premise of the traditional story is contradicted by observational data: organizational routines are repetitive but not necessarily fixed or unchanging.

    “Another problem is that the premise of the traditional story is contradicted by observational data. Organizational routines are certainly repetitive, but they are not necessarily fixed or unchanging.”

    From Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change (2003) · cites this paper as Suchman, 1983

  • If computer technology does not take into account support for the dynamic development, change, and breakdown in cooperation, the system fails.

    “If computer technology does not take into account support for the dynamic development, change, and breakdown in cooperation the system fails.”

    From Designing for the dynamics of cooperative work activities (1998) · cites this paper as [22]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. BITTNER, E. The concept of organization. Social Research 32 (1965), 230-255.
  2. ELLIS, C. A., AND NUTT, G.J. Computer science and office information systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 12, 1 (March 1980), 27-60.
  3. SELZNICK, P. TVA and the Grassroots. Free Press, New York, 1966 (original publication date, 1949).
  4. WOODWARI), J. Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. Oxford, London, 1965.
  5. ZIMMERMAN, D. The practicalities of rule use. In Understanding Everyday Life, J. Douglas, Ed., Aldine, Chicago, 1970. Received July 1982; revised July 1983; accepted August 1983 ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, Vol. 1, No. 4, October 1983.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Suchman, L. A.
Affiliations
Palo Alto Research Center (US)
Corresponding author
Suchman, Lucy A.
ORCID
Suchman, Lucy A.
Venue
ACM Transactions on Information Systems
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
1983-10
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
320-328
ISSN
  • 1046-8188 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2868
DOI
10.1145/357442.357445
OpenAlex
W2083799270
Cited by
450
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 14
FWCI
15.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
ACM Transactions on Information Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
Keywords
office work, office procedures, office information systems, accounting offices, procedural tasks, practical action

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review