CID-104, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden 2000

Co-operative Design — perspectives on 20 years with‘the Scandinavian IT Design Model’

Susanne Bødker, Pelle Ehn, Dan Sjögren & Yngve Sundblad

Reports can be ordered from:CID, Centre for User Oriented IT DesignNada, Dept. Computing ScienceKTH, Royal Institute of TechnologyS-100 44 Stockhom, Swedentelephone: + 46 8 790 91 00fax: + 46 8 790 90 99e-mail: cid@nada.kth.seURL: http://cid.nada.kth.se

Susanne Bødker, Pelle Ehn, Dan Sjögren & Yngve SundbladCo-operative Design — perspectives on 20 years with ‘the Scandinavian IT Design Model’

Report number: CID-104ISSN number: ISSN 1403-073XPublication date: October 2000

Keynote presentation,Proceedings of NordiCHI 2000, Stockholm, October 2000.

- 1 -

Co-operative Design — perspectives on 20 years with‘the Scandinavian IT Design Model’

Susanne Bødker Pelle Ehn Dan Sjögren Yngve SundbladDAIMI School of Art and NUTEK (National CID

Communication Board for Technical NADAUniversity of Aarhus Malmö University Development) KTHDenmark Sweden Sweden Sweden

IntroductionThe authors were all involved in the ‘seminal’Utopia project, 1981-85, where Co-operativeDesign methodology, involving users very earlyin the design process, had an early developmentand application in the use of computers.

One strong goal was to ‘give the end users avoice’ in design and development of computersupport in work places, thus enhancing thequality of the resulting system. The ‘secondaryresult’ of Utopia, the methodology, withingredients such as low-tech prototyping, earlydesign sessions with users etc, has had greatimpact on IT design in general. This is the casenot only where the methods are a main ingredientas in Co-operative Design and in ParticipatoryDesign, but also as part of now common practicesin HCI and in CSCW in general and in latermethodologies such as Consensus Participation,Contextual Design and Co-operative Inquiry.

Thus the obvious idea to involve the users asearly as possible in systems and interface design,using low and high tech prototypes, has become astandard to which most developers pay at least lipservice. That it is not necessarily followed inpractise is usually because of time constraints andlack of insight rather than ill-will, but there arealso inherent difficulties.

In Utopia and in further Co-operative Designpractise we have met important concerns nottaken into account in the original Utopia work.In our 20-year practical experience from severaldesign and development projects we have gainedinsight and found methods to deal with theseconcerns, not always solving but at least relievingthe problems.

UtopiaThe project Utopia (acronym from ‘Training,Technology And Product In Quality of workperspective’ in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish)was started in 1981 at the initiative of NGU (theNordic labour unions for graphic workers). Froma research perspective the Utopia project may beseen as an ambitious continuation and follow-upof a number of projects in Norway, Sweden, andDenmark in the 1970s, in which researchersfollowed and supported the attempts of local tradeunions to influence the use of technology atwork.

Image from an edition of Thomas More'sUtopia from 1516

The overall objective of Utopia was tocontribute to the development of powerful skillenhancing tools for graphic workers, in the lightof the emerging graphic workstation technology.Quality of work and product was very important.Both technical and social prerequisites, as well asobstacles and limitations were examined. Thelabour processes of page make-up and imageprocessing in integrated computer based

- 2 -

newspaper production was in focus. Participantswere 5 members of NGU (4 in Stockholm, 1 inAarhus) and researchers from the Swedish Centrefor Working Life (ALC), Stockholm, NADA atthe Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,and DAIMI at the University of Aarhus.

The main activities during Utopia (1981-86):• mutual learning between the active

participants: graphic workers, computer andsocial researchers

• requirement specification for a system fornewspaper text and image pre-pressproduction, under development by a Swedishmanufacturer

• studying a pilot installation of the imagesystem in real production at the Swedishnewspaper Aftonbladet

• dissemination, especially to the graphicworkers and to the scientific community. 20‘Utopia reports’ in Swedish or Danish ondifferent aspects of technology, workorganisation and work ennvironment wereproduced. All about 50000 members of NGUgot the final, 48-page edition no.7 of theproject newsletter, Graffiti. The experienceformed a main theme of the 1985 Computersand Democracy conference in Aarhus and ofCSCW’88 in Portland, Oregon.

In order to accomplish this we established a‘technology laboratory’ with development toolsto simulate different kinds of page make-up,image processing, and the surroundingorganisation. Thus we made it possible for thegraphic workers in the project to developrequirements and wishes on a concrete level byactually carrying out the page make-up and imageprocessing on simulation equipment.

Mock-up situation

The tools and methods in the laboratory wereinnovations:• Colour slide mock-ups with picture

sequences that were also pasted on the walls,for simulation of work processes

• Low tech mock-ups of equipment (woodenmouses, cardboard laser writer …), materialand menus (paper)

• A graphic workstation for illustratingprototypes of computer based tools

• A tool kit (box with waxed cards) formodelling and experimenting with workorganisation

Blackboard image sequence for cropping

The main results from Utopia were not so muchthe pilot computer tool built and used atAftonbladet as the experience and methods:• for the NGU members, who from Utopia

knew, at least as well as their employers, thepros and cons of the emerging technologyand what to require from it, for a functionallyand socially acceptable introduction in theirwork

• for the researchers the challenging insight thatthe human interface is very important for howuseful a computer based tool will be,inspiration for establishing IPLab at NADAand similar efforts in Aarhus

• for the researchers and the design communityin general a methodology, Co-operativeDesign, for involvement of end users togetherwith interface designers and programdevelopers on equal footing in computerapplication projects

Pilot installation at Aftonbladet

- 3 -

Utopia experienceIn retrospect we can see the following four mainfeatures of qualities in and experience fromUtopia, coined in modern terms.

Where workers craft technologyThis characterisation comes from MIT TechnicalReview (Howard 1986) with the observation thatUtopia showed that it is possible to designinformation technology based on userequirements such as work organisation, workenvironment, forms of co-operation and workingskills. This idea was almost blasphemy in somemanagement circles then, hardly today.

Setting the stage for design in actionUtopia was precursor to current practises ininteraction design in staging active designexercises such as the organisational tool-box anduse of mock-ups and prototypes as a way toinvolve end users in design. Crucial are the meansto create meaningful design objects for allparticipants (different groups of users anddesigners).

Playing the language game of design and useUtopia gave a lasting contribution to thetheoretical understanding of design with usersthrough contributions such as Pelle Ehn’s andSusanne Bødker’s dissertations (Ehn 1988,Bødker 1991, Bødker 1999) and several otherpapers. Today a ‘Communities of Practice’perspective is mainstream for understandingdesign and learning.

Bringing design to softwareBy this title, borrowed from Terry Winograd(Winograd et al. 1996), we want to point out thatUtopia can be seen as a ‘paradigmatic example’of how design thinking and practise can bebrought into software development, not entirelysuccessful as early paradigmatic examplesseldom are.

These and some other important factors andconcerns met in Utopia and/or in the Co-operativeDesign practise since then follow with examplesin the next sections.

What one does in a project can be difficultfor an organisation to use in general

In the AT project, a co-operation between AarhusUniversity and the local branch of the DanishNational Labour Inspection Service (NLIS), a

purpose was to design a number of computerapplications for the branch and to develop along-term strategy for tried to spread thecollective experiences of participation beyondthose directly involved in the project throughworkshops for everybody, access to prototypesand through a newsletter decentralised systemsdevelopment and maintenance.

In the AT project we deliberately worked tomake the organisation able to maintain its newcompetence, even after we left the organisation,and we have seen that the organisation is stillheavily influenced by the methodologies we haveintroduced.

Thus conditions and concerns of the ATproject, as compared to Utopia was to• Work with both managers and ordinary users• See researchers as resources for the whole

organisation as well as for groups within itThough we were quite concerned with the issuesof power and resources, we occasionally fell intothe trap of working with a group of peoplewithout much concern for their relationships inthe organisation. This may have been more of aproblem than we were aware of. We did put a lotof emphasis on education, supported by allparties of the organisation, includingmanagement. Though all parties found thisimportant, at times it was a problem to get theparticipants' compensation from their normalwork load. Perhaps these last observationsillustrate more than anything how easily we canall be seduced by a friendly atmosphere until thereal power issues show up.

‘Standard technology’ where only some‘tailoring’ might be possible

Part of the idea in the AT project was to utilisestandard technology, at the same time as theproject was to develop and implement overallvisions about the use of computer technology inthe organisation. Thus it was a central issue, newcompared to Utopia was to• Be visionary with standard technologyAccess to tailorable off-the-shelf softwarebecomes more and more wide-spread.Experiences from NLIS enforce the impressionthat a two-level strategy is necessary, or at leastthat situated, local problem solving is notsufficient. Within the project we quitesuccessfully worked with both levels, whereas itis questionable whether the top level concerns willbe dealt with also in the future. This may be aproblem for a more long-term expansive

- 4 -

development of technology use, and for technicalproblems of consistency, complexity, etc.

In situations like the NLIS where much designis a matter of local adaptation of standardtechnology a further fundamental question is how‘globally’ we may support local participatorydesign, i.e. local resource acquisition? First of allflexibility of the tailorable standard technology isa necessity. This does not do the trick alone,though. It is important to rethink the designprocess to include structures through whichordinary people at their workplace can promotetheir own interests in a more democratic fashion.

Laboratory testing vs. field work forusability

Our project ‘Usability work in Danish industry’was an action oriented research project that aimedat developing the work practices of usabilitywithin a 3-year time frame. In particular, we havebeen interested in how usability practitioners maydevelop, co-operatively and in interaction withresearchers, their own work practice andunderstand the potential of self reflection. In theDesign Collaboratorium groups from threeDanish companies in co-operation with a groupof HCI researchers, worked exploratively to re-frame their own work practice. The companies,Bang & Olufsen, Danfoss and Kommunedata,were the first three Danish companies to establishusability lab facilities in the early 1990s.

3D workbench prototype at Bang&Olufsen

Despite differences, the three companies allhad an interest in moving out of the lab and intothe field, of increased user involvement and of

enhanced co-operation between usability anddevelopment competencies in the companies.

While it seems to be common knowledge inresearch circles that usability labs are too limited,many companies still set out to build such. In ourresearch project we have worked to strengthen theargument for a wider approach to usability byidentifying a number of reasons why usabilitylabs fail. Furthermore, these reasons areimportant, because they point in certain directionswhere usability work needs to expand.

The term Design Collaboratorium pointsdirectly to some of the inherent problems of theusability lab: The lack of co-operation betweendesigners, usability professionals, and users, andthe weak impact on design caused by theanalysis/evaluation bias of usability. At the sametime, the term holds on to some potentiallypositive connotations of the termlaboratory–those relating to experimentation.

The design collaboratorium is furnished withartefacts for creativity, realism and decision,artefacts that bridge across activities, contexts andhistory of use, design, and of the designcollaboratorium as such. These artefacts undergotransformations as the process proceeds.

A change of the competencies and workingpractices of usability professionals is necessaryso that they become increasingly able toorchestrate this type of process at the same timeas they themselves contribute with theirprofessional insight into use and usability.

Kommunedata has moved out of thelaboratory to such an extent, that anecdotes tellthat people are wondering whether the usabilitylab still exists (which it does). Bang & Olufsenhave started working in their permanent designroom, and this process will be studied further inthe future.

Design for other settings than work placesIn the EU financed KidStory project (1998-2001)elementary school children in Sweden andEngland work together with adult researchers andteachers in development of computer tools forcollaborative storytelling. The design process,Co-operative Inquiry (Druin 1999) has Co-operative Design with low tech prototyping andintergenerational design teams as centralelements. The challenge from the currentperspective is to investigate if and how youngchildren can be part of a Co-operative Designprocess on an equal footing as the adults.

- 5 -

Mock-up of storytelling machine, made by a teamof 4 children and 2 adults

We have found that as time goes on, our teammembers have begun to see themselves astechnology inventors and partners. Childrenbegin to see themselves less as users and more asinventors and adults begin to see themselves lessas lone researchers and more as partners.

The team moves from ‘wondering how this isdone’ to planning ‘what will be done’. Childrenand adults alike gather field data, initiate ideas,test, and develop new prototypes. Team membersdo what they are capable of, and learn from eachother throughout the process. We try to keep inmind that it is not easy for an adult to step into achild’s world, and likewise it is not easy for achild to step into an adult’s world. We havefound that no single technique can give teams allthe answers they are looking for, so acombination of techniques has been adapted ordeveloped for the KidStory project.

Die from mock-up realised as sound andimage recorder

We have found that when children seethemselves as inventors, they can feel quite

empowered and challenged. Children have so fewexperiences in their lives where they cancontribute their opinions and see that adults takethem seriously. This experience can buildconfidence in children academically and socially.Children can grow to see themselves assomething more than users of technology. Theycan come to believe that they can make adifference as inventors.

While this philosophy may seem simple,carrying it out is no small challenge whenchildren are accustomed to following what adultssay, and adults are accustomed to being in charge.Methods of communication, collaboration, andpartnership must be developed that canaccommodate children and adults as co-inventors.This takes time and patience to accomplish.When children are inventors and partners, thetraditional structures of school can also be achallenge to negotiate. The design team activitiesmust work around the limitations of an alreadybusy school day. For particular activities,permissions may be needed from teachers and attimes head masters. Limited school resources interms of technology must also be considered aswell as school safety procedures to keep newtechnologies from being stolen. In addition, thechallenge of an on-going partnership withchildren must also be considered. No longer arechildren only a part of the research activities for aday, or a month. On-going years of collaborationmeans that the same children must be followedfrom one classroom to the next.

From 1980 to 2000 – ironies and promisesIn the early 1980s and the ‘era of democratisationin Scandinavia’, when the belief in ‘folkhemmet’,the Swedish social and democratic version of thewelfare state still was strong, there was no changeof the production and consequently nocontribution to productivity improvements.Management opposed to changes in worksuggested by the trade union. The trade unionopposed to the technology suggested bymanagement. However, trade unionunderstanding of new technology increased and atrade union strategy on design and use ofinformation technology was developed.Contributions to important changes in laws andagreements were made, but the work itself did notreally become more ‘rewarding’.

In the current ‘post-modern’ conditions,where the national economy recently was adisaster, unemployment higher than ever, thelegitimacy of trade unions is questioned, and

- 6 -

‘folkhemmet’ rapidly de-mounted, productionreally changed, in the direction suggested by theunion and the workers in the early 1980s.Productivity increased, work really became more‘rewarding’ and top management stronglysupported the change. Is there a social andtechnical difference that makes a socio-technicaldifference? Which is the role played by thedifferent actors and by technology?

TechnologyIn the early 1980s industry was mainly usingmainframe computers with terminals. Productionplanning systems were used to control people andmaterial. To design and implement new systemswas very time consuming and a task for thecentral administration, often in the shape of a datadepartment.

Now (2000) information technology iseverywhere, not only at work, but in our wholelife world. Work stations, personal computers,and mainframes can all be on the same ‘net’ oreven on the truly global Internet. All data can inprinciple be accessed from everywhere. Theinteraction with computers has been simplified bythe use of graphical interfaces. There arepowerful tools for local design of databases,calculations, and programs of all kind, and a lot ofrelatively cheap standard software is available.Potentially workers can in technical terms be incontrol of the technology and use it as a tool.

ManagementIn 1980 the management literature onorganisation, technology and change wassuggesting participation, autonomous workgroups, local planning etc. What we met inpractice was, however, a management philosophynot much altered since the introduction ofTaylorism as the principle to plan and controlwork. The whole idea with the computer use wasbased on this dogma. A dialogue with the unionand the workers on development of theproduction based on skilled work, industrialdemocracy and participation was not an obviousapproach.

Now (2000) we meet a managementphilosophy more according to the book. In thelate 1980s many big companies really tried to usethe whole worker as a productive resource. SAShad its service management, and ABB wassuccessful with its T50 concept to mention twocompanies with relations to Scandinavia. The co-workers competence and their participation inchanges were seen as a fundament resource.

UnionsIn the early 1980s the trade unions in Swedenwere stronger than ever, and with a lot of selfconfidence. Industrial and economic democracylooked as goals within reach. Laws andagreements were instigated on co-determinationand work environment, wage earner funds, strongworker representation at the company boards, etc.Unemployment was something for othercountries.

Now (2000) there are many signs of aweakened trade union movement, although it isrecovering from the real hardship with theextreme unemployment around 1995. There istalk about a legitimacy crisis. Workers are nolonger ‘born into the workers movement’, tradeunions have to fight with company managementfor the souls - rights against privileges.Democracy at work and economic democracy aretopics far down the agenda. Unemployment is thebig threat.

But the picture is scattered. There is a generalpattern of trade unions as less and less importantplayers in socio-technical change. Concreteexperiences show an opposite pattern: localunions as main players in participatory change ofwork and technology at the workplace.

ResearchersIn the 1980s the researchers forming theScandinavian co-operative design tradition didthis out of a political commitment to the idea ofdemocracy at work. We were dissidents from tothe socio-technical tradition, which we found inpractice to have failed its theoretical andideological ideal. Our focus was on contact withlocal unions as the key players in socio-technicalchange. At the same time we tried to establish alink to the society level by trying to influencelaws and agreement to be more supportive todemocratic local socio-technical changeprocesses. We also participated in the publicdebate about technology and democracy at work.We had a socio-technical change strategy, but wewere weak on design methods. We calledourselves the ‘collective resource approach’ todesign and use of information technology. It isnot a coincidence that the results focused onstruggle, negotiations, veto, laws and agreements.The approach was basically ethical, in the sensethat it focused on the quality of function, whichinterests the technology served.

Now (2000) the picture has changed. In manyprojects during the last decade we have learned alot about co-operative design methods. To make

- 7 -

real worker (and management) participationpossible in the socio-technical design process wedeveloped a number of methods based onprototyping, full scale mock-ups, organisationalgames, role playing, future workshops, etc. Wehave become more of designers than ofpoliticians. The focus is rather pragmatic: Let usstrive for good relations between workers andmanagement and in participation make work more‘rewarding’. The approach has become moreaesthetic, in the sense that it focused also on thequality of experience, how it is for the worker /user to use the technology.

Conclusions – futureThese examples, from Utopia to KidStory, andmany others help to develop the Co-operativeDesign methods both explicitly and as part of thegeneral HCI design tradition.

Often the problems of user participation arediscussed from the point of view of researchersgetting access to the users. Yet, user participationshould also be seen from the point of view of theconditions of the participation process, i.e. howthe conditions are set for the users to participatetogether with designers (and managers).Experiences from Co-operative Design projectsshow problems that Co-operative Designresearch needs to deal with.

There are indeed a number of difficulties to beovercome, as we have mentioned in this paper. Itis important to find the right set of participants,the right tools and techniques as well as the rightlocation and physical space for the Co-operativeDesign. And not least it is important to create asetting where all involved groups can make activecontributions that are meaningful to themselves aswell as to other groups of participants. In ourexperience, this, in some cases, requires a seriouschange in attitude for many of the involvedgroups.

Our ‘political’ focus on worker participationand the development of new co-operative designmethods have in the 1990s become a ‘success’ inthe USA as ‘Scandinavian participatory design’.The reason is simple: participation is not only apolitical and emancipatory category, it is also abasic epistemological (knowledge theoretical)principle. Participation is a fundamental process,not only for democracy, but also for learning. Itwould certainly be to overestimate our politicalimpact to confuse the two. Today we are more athome in the academic world, than on the politicalarena. The researchers are no longer dissidents,

but for good and bad pretty main stream socio-technical researchers and designers.

But then again, everything float, how shouldwe pass the river the next time? Maybe byreturning to the questions that more than twodecades ago made a difference: ‘How do wedesign systems to fit people’ versus ‘How do wemake it possible for people to design their ownsystems themselves’. As researchers anddesigners socio-technical design we need thedialects between the two, to continuously developour ethical and aesthetical competence asresearchers and designers of a better place towork.

A very promising development is inspired by‘consumers movements’. The very successfulcomputer equipment certification by TCO, theSwedish Confederation of professionalemployees, organising 1.3 million white-collarworkers, is a remarkable example (Boivie & al1997). As result of work at TCO. led by thedriving force Per-Erik Boivie, more than 100million users around the world now haveTCO’99 or TCO’95 ‘environmentally labelled’computers or at least certified display screens.Most of those users do not know that is certifiedby a Swedish trade union. User organisationsupport was important in enforcing thiscertification and making it a market advantage.

Similar initiatives are now taken in Sweden forcertification, or at least pushing demand onsuppliers, of ‘on the floor’ computer support inwork places. LO, the Swedish blue collar unionconfederation, has taken initiative to the ITQproject, ‘Quality certification of InformationTechnology for the developing work’, with pilotstudies at several mechanical industry workplacesand care workplaces. Co-ordinating researchpartner is CID at KTH.

A part of the project is the ‘Users award’,driven by LO, TCO and CID, where users inworkplaces nominate computer systems that givegood support technically and socially. The firstwinner was a time scheduling system, TimeCare,at the emergency department at a hospital, Falulasarett, where the nurses through a clever flexibleplanning program get work schedules muchbetter adapted to their other needs than before(‘much more freedom’ as they put it.) A webpresentation of ITQ with Users’ Award is (Lind2000).

ITQ with Users’ Award might be the Utopiaof 2000 and an inspiration for a ‘work place usermovement’ for better computer support.

- 8 -

TimeCare at Falu lasarett, winner ofLO-TCO-CID’s Users’ Award year 2000

AcknowledgementsThe Co-operative Design tradition owes itsdevelopment to a large number of practitionersand researchers. We recognise the importance ofdiscussions with many of them for ourunderstanding of possibilities and limitations.

Specifically we want to thank the othermembers of the Utopia group for a greatexperience of fruitful co-operation:

• Gunnar Kokaas, chairman of NGU referencegroup

• Gunnar Rasmussen, Danish graphic worker• Björn Burell, Bernt Eriksson, Bo Ericsson,

Malte Eriksson, Martin Eriksson and BjörnSporsén, Swedish graphic workers

• Angelika Dilschmann, Ewa Gunnarsson andÅke Sandberg, Center for Working LifeResearch, Stockholm

• Merete Bartholdy, Kurt Jensen, JohnKammersgaard and Morten Kyng, DAIMI,Aarhus University

• Kerstin Frenckner, Caroline Nordquist,Staffan Romberger and Kerstin SeverinsonEklundh, NADA, KTH

References and bibliographyBenford, S., Bederson, B., Bayon, V., Druin, A.,Hansson, P., Hourcade, J. P., Ingram, R., Neale, H.,O'Malley, C., Simsarian, K., Stanton, D., Sundblad, Y.,Taxén, G. and Åkesson, K.-P. (2000). DesigningStorytelling Technologies to Encourage CollaborationBetween Young Children, Proceedings of CHI’2000, theHague, April 2000, pp.556-563.

Blomberg, L., Frenckner, K., Kruse, B., Lönnemark, G.,Romberger, S. and Sundblad, Y. (1984). A New Approachto Text and Image Processing, IEEE Computer Graphicsand Applications, vol.4, no.7, pp.1-11.

Boivie, P., Asplund, M., Ekström, B., Fransson, K.,Frey, C., Northman-Alm, T., Petrelius, T. and PrietoBeaulieu, M. (1997). TCO´95 for the professional userand the external environment, Proceedings of WWDU’97,Tokyo, November 1997.

Buur, J. and Bødker, S. (2000). From usability to designcollaboratorium reframing usability practice. Proceedingsof DIS’2000, New York Aug 2000, ACM Press, pp.297-307.

Bødker, S. (1991). Through the Interface: A HumanActivity Approach to User Interface Design, LawrenceErlbaum Associates , Hillsdale, NJ

Bødker, S. (1993). Historical analysis and conflicting per-spectives - contextualizing HCI: In Bass, L., Gornostaev,J. & Unger, C. (1993). Human-Computer interaction.3rd International Conference, EWHCI '93, SpringerLecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 753 (pp. 1-10).Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer.

Bødker, S. (1996). Creating conditions for participation:Conflicts and resources in systems design, HumanComputer Interaction 11(3), 215-236, 1996.

Bødker, S. (1999). Computer applications as mediatorsof design and use - a developmental perspective.Doctoral dissertation, Department of Computer Science,University of Aarhus.

Bødker, S. and Christiansen, E. (1997). Scenarios asspringboards in design. In Bowker, G., Gasser, L., Star,S. L. and Turner, W. (eds.). Social science research,technical systems and cooperative work, Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum pp. 217-234.

Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Kammersgaard, J., Kyng, M. andSundblad, Y. (1987). A Utopian experience: In G.Bjerknes, P. Ehn, & M. Kyng. (Eds.), Computers anddemocracy: A Scandinavian challenge (pp. 251–278).Aldershot, UK: Avebury.

Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Knudsen, J. L., Kyng, M. andMadsen, K. H. (1988). Computer Support for CooperativeDesign: In Proceedings of CSCW’98, Portland, Oregon,Sept 1988, New York: ACM, pp. 377-394.

- 9 -

Bødker, S. and Grønbæk K. (1996). Users and Designersin Mutual Activity- an analysis of cooperative activitiesin systems design. In Engeström, Y. & Middleton D.(Eds.). Cognition and Communication at Work,Cambridge University Press, pp. 130-158.

Bødker, S. and Halskov Madsen, K. (1998). Context - anactive choice in usability work, Interactions,July+August 1998, pp. 17-25.

Druin, A. (1999), Co-operative Inquiry – Developing NewTechnology for Children with Children, Proceedings ofCHI’99, Pittsburgh, May 1999, pp. 223-230.

Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer arti-facts. Falköping: Arbetslivscentrum/Almqvist & WiksellInternational, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ehn, P. (1992). Scandinavian Design - on skill andparticipation" in Adler, P. And Winograd, T. (eds.):Usability - Turning technologies into tools, OxfordUniversity Press.

Ehn, P. (1995). Panta Rei - Scandinavian participatorydesign in the stream of social and technical change, invitedpaper for the International Colloquium: OrganisationalInnovation and the Sociotechnical Systems Tradition,Melbourne May 1995.

Ehn, P. and Kyng, M. (1987). The Collective ResourceApproach to Systems Design. In Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P.,& Kyng, M. (Eds.), Computers and Democracy - AScandinavian Challenge. Aldershot, UK: Avebury,pp.17-58

Ehn, P. and Kyng M. (1991). Cardboard Computers. InGreenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (eds.). Design at Work:Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Ehn, P. and Sjögren, D. (1991). From SystemDescription to Scripts for Action. In Greenbaum, J. andKyng, M. (eds.). Design at Work: Cooperative Design ofComputer Systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 241-268

Grafitti no. 7. (1985). Alternatives in text and imageFinal newsletter from the Utopia project,Arbetslivscentrum, 48 pp.

Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (eds., 1991). Design atWork: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1991.

Grudin, J. (1993). Obstacles to Participatory Design inLarge Product Development Organizations: In Namioka,A. & Schuler, D. (Eds.), Participatory design. Principlesand practices (pp. 99-122). Hillsdale NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Howard, R. (1985). Utopia - Where Workers Craft NewTechnology, Technological Review, Vol. 88, no. 3,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp.43-49

Kyng, M. (1989). Designing for a dollar a day. Office,Technology and People, 4(2): 157-170.

Lind, T. (2000). Users award, initiative by LO, TCO andCID as part of the ITQ project, Web-presentationhttp://www.itiarbetet.pp.se/user/html/om_eng.html

Madsen K.H. and Borgholm, T (1999). CooperativeUsability Practices. Communications of the ACM , 42, 5,May 1999, pp. 91-97.

Mogensen, P. (1994). Cooperative analysis, Ph.D.thesis, Aarhus University.

Muller, M, Haslwanter, J.H., Dayton, T. (1997).Participatory practices in the software lifecycle, inHelander, M., Landauer, T & Prabdu, P., Handbook ofHuman Computer Interaction, North Holland Amsterdam,pp. 255-298.

Sundblad, Y., Romberger, S. and Henriksson, A. (1996).Utopia presentation on the Web: qualitheque.ics.lu.se/home/qualcont/utopia/bidrag/utopback.htm

Trigg, R. and Bødker, S. (1994). From Implementation todesign: Tailoring and the emergence of systematization inCSCW: In Proceedings of CSCW 94. New York, NY:ACM, pp-45-54.

Utopia video (1985). In Computers in Context, Ideas inmotion, San Francisco, 10 min.

Winograd, T., Bennett,J., De Young, L. and Hartfield, B.(1996). Bringing design to software. Addison-Wesley.