‘Things to think with’ in organisational action

1. ‘Things to think with’ in organisational action The presentation will examine the function, use and application of distributed cognition, focusing on its role in social and organisational activity, and its application in HCI design. Distributed cognition is a technique that draws from the cognitive and social sciences, utilising ethnographic techniques of data collection to examine how information processing can be conducted over a larger unit of activity than the individual, incorporating multiple individuals and external tools. The use of the framework has great potential value in the design of information systems, and particularly, of interaction design because of its orientation towards the co-ordination of information representations across external media. However, the technique has practical limitations to its use and a number of academic questions regarding its theoretical foundations, and these will also be addressed.

2. socially distributed cognition artefacts, organisations and design mark perry Brunel University <mark.perry@brunel.ac.uk> <people.brunel.ac.uk/~cssrmjp>

3. Theory what distributed cognition is… DCog, specifically theoretical background novel, interesting or useful? Application and Use examples (data collection and analysis) emerging research HCI and CSCW theoretical and practical implications function, application and use of DCog

4. the boundaries of cognition do not stop with the individual a range of mechanisms may be used in cognitive processes involving symbol manipulation thus, cognitive processes may: involve internal (mental) and external (in the world) structures be socially distributed be temporally distributed principles and mechanisms

5. some background • several versions, appropriations and uses of the term • Shared/ social/ group cognition, ecological psychology, situated cognition, situated action/ ethnomethodology, etc. • all dealing with ‘embodiment’: mind, body and world interacting and influencing one another • today: • focus on Ed Hutchin’s work (let’s call it DCog) • dear old Donald (on cognitive artefacts): • “…artefacts do not actually change an individual’s capabilities. Rather, they change the nature of the task performed by that person. When the information and processing structure of the artefact is combined with the task, the result is to result is to expand and enhance cognitive capabilities of the total system of human, task, and artefact” • why the interest from HCI? • making the jump: easy for cognitive scientists to accept - not like ethnomethodology or activity theory (etc., etc.) • information focused: important in designing technology

6. focus ofdistributed cognition • use of the term • Generally used to mean approaches to the study of the division of labour over multiple resources: • Other people, artefacts and/or situation • it’s about cognition • information representation and processing • …but with a difference in the boundary of analysis … …and consequently, data collection methods applied • Humans as skilled co-ordinators of representations (internal and external) • and not necessarily directly performing mental processing on that information • i.e. applying general-purpose (co-ordination) skills and not case by case planning/ execution

7. representation and the IP metaphor • cog sci: human mind operates through computational mechanisms • problem solving => changing problem representation changes the problem • successive transformations on a representation can transform initial state into desired state • involves a computational transformation: • of a problem state (i.e. representation of the problem) • from start state through a ‘problem space’ (with resources and constraints) • into a goal state • through propagation of representations across various representational structures • cognitive architecture • in human minds, representational structures are neural pathways • DCog: no distinction between representational media – internal or external – forming a system ‘boundary’

8. extends study of individual cognition, looking at ‘internal’ cognitive representations and processes… …to the study of people, their organisation and use of external resources as representations and processes how is it cognitive/information processing? from Halverson, 1995

9. the ‘problem’ with traditional cognitive science • posits we can understand human action without reference to the outside world • we just need to understand the mind, then we can understand interactions (physical and social) with the world • there are some problems with this(!) • and what if we don’t yet fully understand the mind? how can we do anything useful now?

10. SociallyDistributed Cognition: the social organisation of group problem solving • group activity is a computation realised through the creation, transformation and propagation of representational states • SDCog allows us to examine how such computations are organised, and how representations act as intermediaries in collaboration • many ways to organise the system to distribute the computational load • some better than others (speed, processing resources required, proneness to error) • division of labour • determines the computational architecture of the problem solving unit • establishes the resources and processes brought to bear on problem representations • system can do adaptive structuring • organising and reorganising physical and cognitive artefacts in the environment • modifying the social context

11. ‘doing’ DCog • unit of analysis: the ‘functional system’ • individuals, cognitive artefacts/media - and their relations • boundaries set by analyst (! - note theoretical implication - !) • examines ‘information-representation’ transitions • equivalent to examining a systems’ mental state • many approaches to ‘doing a DCog’ • a framework not a method • generally, data collection is observational - the ‘cognitive ethnography’ • Example: • ConsCo

12. time example 1 - media transformations shows key representational transformations and co-ordinations in the computation in resolving the problem and communicating information to the senior engineer

13. example 2 - social co-ordination and cross media transformations Senior engineer (SE): ‘If you look here, there’s a barrel run there’ <points at sketch generated in the meeting of a section view through a design structure> Temporary works design co-ordinator (TWC): ‘Yes I see’. SE: ‘So if we dig here...’ <he holds one hand to the sketch and runs a finger on the other hand along a permanent works drawing (in plan view) beside the sketch, indicating a line of reference> TWC: ‘No you can’t do that because of drainage problems...’ <pauses> ‘...No, no, I see now’. SE: ‘So if we cap these piles here...’ <indicates several points on the sketch> TWC: ‘Yeah. OK. Lets do that’. • common understanding: cross-referencing external representations • bringing together and aligning representations collaboratively • co-ordination of representations is mediated by the senior engineer using hands to demonstrate relationship between drawing and sketch • allows him to indicate where the digging (on the sketch, seen from the side) would have to be performed on the site (on the drawing, from an aerial view) • physically using his body to mediate this, he creates a new, shared viewpoint of the information on the two media

14. Informational transformations

15. some recent work in SDCog space as a computational resource (spinelli et al., perry et al.) ‘more than just another factor influencing behaviour in a setting’…and worthy of investigation in its own right

16. embodiment is spatial! • DCog examines the role of artefacts, or ‘objects of co-ordination’ • but these do not just exist socially… • but in real places, that carry meanings, and provide spatial constraints that afford particular forms of use and interpretations of their meaning • previous work by Kirsh, but supporting individual action • how? By physically: • orienting problem solvers to information (awareness) • structuring social organisation (cognitive architecture) • structuring collaborative computations (co-ordinating representational transformation)

17. 1. physically orienting problem solvers to information • artefacts in line-of-sight support deixis: providing shared reference in social interaction • ‘angular visibility’ • artefacts can be oriented to show to only those people within visual range as a filtering device (i.e. impacting on the cognitive architecture) • making visible the computational structure • orientation of other people to artefacts can provide actors with cues to interpret the division of labour (i.e. the computational structure of the distributed cognitive system) - ask: who is directing their gaze to what? • physical foregrounding and backgrounding: ‘zooming’ • space is limited: moving artefacts sets visual limits on the number of ‘chunks’ of material in close proximity for detailed examination and discussion

18. 2. physically structuring social organisation • using space to structure the division of cognitive labour by managing access to information artefacts • physical division of labour • moving artefacts allows them to be allocated to people/sub-groups • a physical hand-off of responsibility for work (e.g. removal from a common to a personal space) • simplifying co-ordination of parallel collaborative work processes • by manipulating proximity and access to artefacts, information is no longer available for processing by others • flexible and contingent distribution of task responsibility without requiring hierarchical protocols to be imposed or negotiated

19. 3. physically structuring (collaborative) computations • spatial arrangement of information artefacts is important in the performance of the computational activity • a unique physical reality (physical artefacts can only be in one place at a time) • reification of spatially-related abstract principles (e.g. useful in categorisation, or ordering) • spatial placement can constrain the order of action • ensuring mutual intelligibility (e.g. one thing on top of another, on top of another) • mapping spatial structure to symbolic structure • structural arrangements of physical media tends to map onto conceptual arrangements of information (e.g. top to bottom, left to right, close to far)

20. returning to broader issues application in design, limitations, current status and conclusions

21. application in HCI and CSCW design • makes visible the mechanisms co-ordinating representational transformations • insights offered into how cognition is & can be distributed across people and the (increasingly) smart environments that they work and play in • a description of the informational characteristics of work • shows representational properties and functions of media • important in developing and introducing I.S. • highlights information bottlenecks and communications breakdowns • and where not to introduce digital technologies • cannot be applied directly to HCI and CSCW design • creative interpretation is necessary • describes work in informational and computational terms • gives system designers a stronger model of work • frames social and organisational p-s in terms of representations and processes: terms well understood by systems designers

22. limitations and applicability • developing framework (mid-1990s) • not an established discipline • weakly-defined set of acknowledged characteristics and boundaries • painstakingly slow, needs expert knowledge • DCog appropriate for analysing problem solving • but not all situations are best described as p-s • no clearly framed way to do a DCog analysis • reasonably robust theoretical framework, • but not prescriptive in its application • …nor how to apply it to systems design • how is this co-ordination achieved by agents/actors? (Latour) • is DCog an emergent property of activity systems? … or just a useful analytical device? … … but is this any different from criticisms of GOF cog sci

23. DCog in broader use • date of primary reference: 1995 - not superseded • widely cited in HCI literature, rarely used in anger (though freq. cited) • DCog paper: Hollan, Hutchins and Kirsh rated #10 ACM download of the month (Oct 2006) • and most is theory-based • less commonly discussed within cog sci community • although not considered too controversial any more • clearly still relevant, but issues...

25. conclusion • emerging theoretical framework • goes beyond the individual - functional system is an information processing unit • tries to take account of work context • identifies co-ordination and breakdowns • identify some areas that have not been explored deeply (space - the final frontier?)