COORDINATION THEORY - Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Foundations - page 116

• Shifting task dependencies (by learning or transferring mobile code)
• Various third-party mechanisms
• More complex multi-stage negotiation strategies
Schmidt and Simone (1996) focus on the use of artifacts for coordination purposes in cooperative
settings. They suggest that coordination mechanisms “are characterized by a specific and crucial rela-
tionship between protocol and artifact,” and consider computational coordination mechanisms, “in
which the allocation of functionality between actor and artifact is changed in such a way that the coor-
dination mechanism, as a software device, incorporates the artifact in a computational form as well as
aspects of the protocol which, again in a computational form, operates on the artifact” (p. 185).
CT also has clear links to other theories of social behavior. The original presentation of CT indi-
cated its reliance on theories of group decision making and communications. Englert et al. (1996)
extend this layer framework to include and describe relationships among coordination, cooperation
(modified from “group decision making”), communication, and selected communication media.
Gittel (2000) notes the importance of human relations for successful coordination. Crowston and
Kammerer (1998) combine CT and collective mind theory (Weick and Roberts, 1993) to identify
sources of problems in managing teams of requirements analysts at two companies (extending the
example presented above). The two theories complement each other in that CT assumes that indi-
viduals have shared understandings of the problems they face, while collective mind theory explains
how those shared understandings develop. Weigand, van der Poll, and de Moor (2003) similarly note
that the problem of coordination is aggravated by several factors, such as the information asymme-
try between actors. They suggest that “when communicative action is aimed at mutual understand-
ing, it is an integration mechanism indeed, and thus also a coordination mechanism” (p. 123).
Social Factors
Finally, Martens identifies three social factors for the acceptance of a theory: the theory is rela-
tively easy to understand and to use; it first appears in a widely read journal; and it is communi-
cated in a variety of settings (e.g., via students and lab members). CT scores generally well on the
first and third criteria, but not as well on the second. The definition of coordination proposed by
Malone and Crowston is quite simple and easy to understand, perhaps accounting for the high
number of citations to the definition. The modeling framework is similar to many already in use,
again suggesting that it is easy to use.
On the other hand, although ACM Computing Surveys is well known in the computer science
field, it is hardly known outside of it. The choice of the original outlet explains the preponderance
of citations in computer- and information-related fields and the relative paucity of citations in
organizational-focused disciplines, even though CT was intended to unify these treatments of
coordination. The article has recently been reprinted in two topics, which may help in the dis-
semination of the ideas. Finally, CT has been picked up and further disseminated by several of
Malone's students and colleagues (eleven of the forty-six substantive papers or about 25 percent
were authored by Malone and his associates).
CONCLUSION
In the conclusion to their paper, Malone and Crowston set out a research agenda for CT. To con-
clude this paper, we will briefly discuss the progress that has been made in accomplishing this
agenda and note places where more work is still needed.