1. Theories presented
A few weeks ago I started to collect the overview of my professional activity during 4-5
decades in the research in information systems. I could read my CV and the list of
publications, but was not satisfied with the picture they gave. Then I chose to start listing my
contributions to various theoretical frameworks, followed by a brief explanation of each
contribution. This list I liked much more, it was more representative and it was loaded with
significance. Research is, after all, one particular form of political activity in the society, isn’t
it? Therefore I decided to make this latter list available to my friends. This list is
supplemented by another list. It consists of names for some peculiar concepts used in
different frameworks. Since these concepts are not (yet) in wider use, I define them briefly.
Most of this work has taken place in different groups of my co-workers. Thus I do not want to
make any claim of having done all the work alone. But yet it gives me a consistent view about
the intellectual path along which I have travelled. Hopefully it also challenges some of my
friends to prepare a similar time line of their own journey.
HIS Human-scale Information System
A conceptual construct of system architecture that is decentralised to consist of subsystems
that are used by one individual employee. Such system units have a set of locally stored files
and application software. This integrates the IT tasks to an inherent part of work tasks of the
related actors. In addition, the structure divides the responsibility of the IS quality to the
respective actors. Communication between such personal systems is naturally interpreted as
organisational coordination.
The HIS theory was introduced during the spring term in 1982, when I gave my first special
course in my new position at the University of Bergen, Norway (informasjonsvitenskap,
Information Science). It was “published” in the form of local lecture notes. In this document
the new architecture was analysed from multiple perspectives, among others ontological,
epistemological, cognitive, behavioral, organisational, sociological, and technical.
Three Perspectives
The framework of three perspectives of seeing information systems continued naturally the
HIS approach. The three perspectives were systems-theoretical, socio-technical and
humanistic. The humanistic perspective was fully consistent with the HIS architecture. The
two other perspectives were needed as scaffoldings to the humanistic perspective; it had
turned out that not even all co-workers in Bergen had been able to understand the HIS
concept and to admit that also their own work had been biased by a particular perspective
they had assumed.
The strength of the three parallel perspectives was in their ability to give different
interpretations to one existing phenomenon, an IS in use. The perspectives can be assigned to
different groups: IT-experts were likely to subscribe the systems-theoretical perspective,
whereas the humanistic perspective fitted best for the users. The socio-technical perspective

2. was most useful for management, since they had to find optimal balances to the entire
organisation. The perspectives were characterised by means of ideal types, and differences in
the notions of knowledge, of human being, of organisation were identified.
The framework of three perspectives was published 1986 in Finnish (WSOY) and 1988 in
English (Studentlitteratur), even if most of the material was presented within the department
in Bergen already before I had to return back to Finland in 1984.
Social interpretation
Social interpretation is given to the processes performed by computer information systems:
The computer does not qualify as an actor. The IS functions need another type of
interpretation. The most obvious candidate is the user and her work tasks. In other words, the
user is using the information system as one tool among others for performing her work. The
social interpretation is started by bracketing the current IS solution. Sometimes it is
appropriate to describe the core contents of work entirely without IT, sometimes the work
proper can be made visible by an alternative design (why not e.g. the HIS).
In terms of the Activity Theory (Leontjew), the tasks to be performed by means of computers
cannot belong to the category activity, because it does not make sense to assign the computer
with a notion “motive”. On the other hand, single instructions within the software processes
are quite naturally interpreted as operations, since the automatic execution of algorithms
does not leave space for the deliberate choice of a particular instruction. These limitations
suggest that a software transaction best corresponds the actions, deliberately chosen
sequences of operations. The actor first performs an articulation in order to ensure that just
this particular transaction is what he wants to do in order to live up with the motives of his
activity.
The interest in the social interpretation of IS originates naturally in the humanistic
perspective. In 1986-1990 I was working in the research project “Knowledge and Work”,
financed by the Academy of Finland. The main case environment was the product inventory in
a factory in food industry. We decided that we want to tell our findings and results to our
main informants, the inventory workers by using a simulation through role playing. We
constructed a miniature inventory environment and a socially interpreted (manual)
information system. The simulated information system was run by two members of our
research team. One had a set or manual card files (database) to describe the up-to-date state
of the inventory space. The other simulated the processing unit by performing various
calculations and other processing tasks. The workers were asked to simulate their ordinary
working practices while thinking aloud. This setting was obviously helping the inventory
workers to understand what they are doing when they use the system. An extra bonus was
that they also recognised some problematic situations that created troubles for their work.
They were even able to invent hints for better design that would be free of these problems.
The social interpretation has many significant consequences. One is found in the evaluation of
information systems. When we first bracket the current IS solution, the core activity and its
objectives become visible. This situation not only calls for alternative designs, but it offers the
genuine objectives to be used in the evaluation of the IS. What we have to do is to assess, to

3. what extent the IS contributes to these objectives. Implicitly this means that the IS does not
have any objectives of its own.
ONION
The ONION model reformulates the interest in the better exploitation of information systems.
Its focus is in the integrated character of many, if not most information systems. This implies
that the exploitability can be good for one user group, whereas another group may suffer from
it. Such integrated systems are analysed and evaluated according to the social interpretation.
The Onion serves as a metaphor for organisational activities that are structured as layers
embedded into larger layers, each of which has the objectives of its own. The model was
developed during a case study that was initiated by a customer organisation with some
problems in the computer interfaces of a purchasing system. It was quite straightforward to
find solutions to the interface problem recognised by the customer. But the bottleneck did
disappear only partly, because the clerks who recorded the orders to the database continued
to receive only partial information and had to contact the senders in order to complete the
records. This problem was more serious than the interface failures had been. It turned out to
be an organisational game in which single departments tried to get their orders to be paid
from the company’s overhead, i.e. it belonged to the layer of middle management. Some
discipline had to be exercised to improve the quality of the order data in order to work out
comprehensive purchasing report to fulfil the spelled out intention to follow a centralised
purchasing policy. We decided to continue our analysis by estimating the benefits of this
report to the organisation. It was a big surprise for us to learn that nobody in the top
management was interested in reading this report. This observation did put a question mark
to the centralised purchasing policy: nobody seemed to be interested to supervise it. The
whole order processing could be redesigned with great savings. The customer received help
to the recognised problem, but it was probably much more valuable to become aware about
the other problems and their hierarchical dependencies.
Organisational implementation
Organisational implementation is based on the notion of inseparability of IT from the work in
a use situation. This notion is one of the cornerstones of the Work Informatics (see the next
item). Organisational implementation emphasises the need to make changes to all aspects of
the work and its organisation, technical installation alone is not enough. The broad range of
the change is well illustrated by an example of user education of a new electronic patient
record (EPR) system in the city of Turku. There were about 600 future users, 60 per cent of
which never had used any computer-based information system before at their work. The
system supplier had installed a learning environment, in which the users could safely
experiment with various aspects of the system. The first session was organised by the
supplier: one of their software experts was introducing the system and its functions. People
were dissatisfied and refused to continue the collaboration with a person who had no insight
of their professional practices.

4. Dramatic changes were implemented. A team of experienced nurses was recruited for
redesigning the entire education project. Lots of new material was produced. The teaching
event was organised as a sequence of episodes of work activities relevant for the group in the
learning environment. Each episode consisted of two parts: 1) this is how we used to perform
these work tasks earlier, and 2) this is how we shall do the same tasks in the future. In the
phase 2 the new practices with the new system were demonstrated and displayed on a big
screen, and then the participants were encouraged to try the procedures with their
workstations. To sum up, the basic unit of the education was not a system feature but rather a
work practice. The basic unit of new learning was not a set of operations (Leontjew) but
entire chains of actions that were loaded with the spirit of activity (good work practice) of
health care. This new emphasis is illustrated by the aphorism (Irmeli Sinkkonen): The work of
the users is not to use the system!”
Work Informatics
Work Informatics is a sub-discipline of Informatics (Information Systems Research) that
addresses the relationship between ICT and work. I have developed my interpretation of
Work Informatics. This work brings together and summarises most of my earlier frameworks
(above). The main decision is not to build a tandem construction of the two ingredients. I
want to give the work the principal role; the use of information technology is subordinated as
a part of work.
The conceptualisation of Work Informatics is not started from the ICT but rather from the
work. Three modalities of work are identified: individual work, collective work and service.
The individual and collective dimensions are traditionally the two sides of work that are
dialectically dependent on each other, i.e. none of them can be properly understood without a
reference to the other. Service-modality adds the external interest of the customer on the
outcome of work. It is extremely useful in dealing with e-services, such as e.g. e-commerce, e-government,
e-health. When we have built a better understanding in work with all its
modalities, we introduce the use of ICT by embedding it in the work processes and practices.
It is probably crucial to human work that the actor takes the time for articulation of the future
work task, i.e. for making it clear to himself what he intends to accomplish. This articulation
will be an important reference to be compared with when he afterwards evaluates the
outcome in order to deliver it.
I am starting to write a book about the fundamentals of Work Informatics. It will hopefully be
available in 2015.
Service Theory
The third modality of work, the service, was developed in an intellectual environment that
aims at promoting the idea of co-creation of the added value by the producer and the
customer of the service. Sometimes also other stakeholders are involved in the co-creation.
This approach is likely to obscure the clear roles of the customer and service provider. The
roles are not on the same side of the counter and the two parties do not share same processes
or objectives. In terms of the General Systems Theory, the group members are doing their

5. work within the system unit, whereas the producer of the service and the customer are on
different sides of the system boundary. Work Informatics does not, however, throw away the
need to create added value. Without the potential of added value there is no justification for a
service. And more specifically: the added value is supposed to come to the benefit of the
customer, who in one form or another, pays for it.
Many people today are frequent customers of various e-services. Yet they are guided to
register themselves to the provider’s systems and platforms. Work Informatics advices to
regard BtoC services according to the same principles as BtoB services. The services appear
then as outsourced substitutes for in-house production/performance. The customer’s practice
must be known if we want to estimate the added value of an outsourced service in
comparison of corresponding self-service. Self-service turns out to be a very useful concept in
the analysis of e-services, this is due to the observation that most of the use of the ICT
happens in the form of self-service.
Coper
Coper is the name for a concept for a personal tool for coping with the jungle of wellbeing and
its various services. It applies the service theory (above) and recognises the citizen as the
owner of her health issues as well as other projects in wellbeing. Thus all her health records
belong to her herself. They constitute a part of the personal information system. The Coper
has been illustrated by means of two metaphors.
1. Navigator. A traveller can use a navigator for managing the travelling information
(time tables, positioning, etc.). Car traveller can use the satnav system for
determination of target, for the selection of the route to the destination out of a few
alternatives, for the follow-up of the progress and for receiving advices for right
decision. This metaphor underlines the driver as the principal actor of her own project
and the route (sequence of steps) towards the destination.
2. Case Manager (CM). Case Manager is a fictitious role that takes care of all aspects of
successful project for care or wellbeing. For example an elderly person living
independently at home may have multiple projects that can be partly outsourced:
projects on health, social issues, maintenance of the home, shopping, banking, eating,
cleaning, washing, etc. All these must be scheduled and adequate resources must be
made available. Some of planned transactions (services) may need transportation to
the point of service delivery. Contracts with various suppliers must be negotiated and
maintained. All details in the integrated network of projects are taken care of by the
case manager. Fortunately, most adult persons continue to live their lives
independently performing their daily routines themselves; such actions can be seen as
self-services. In the same way most persons are capable of functioning as the case
managers of their own. For this purpose the Coper could be a welcomed tool to
support the articulation and follow-up of the set of all projects.

6. Home made concepts
Anti-process
Business processes are oriented towards outcome: something should be accomplished.
Furthermore, all unnecessary steps and delays should be eliminated. Yet, there are interests
that only can be fulfilled by using time and waiting. For example, process re-engineering does
not and should not help in speeding up the pregnancy process. Storage-keeping is another
activity during which no changes (e.g. damages) are desired to happen to the items stored. In
addition, many tasks related with maintenance keep hoping that nothing unwanted would
happen; of course the same holds also for many situations in health care. Anti-process can be
selective: sometimes any change should be prevented, sometimes it may be crucial for a
patient not to do a particular action, e.g. to smoke a cigarette. Such interest of not doing some
actions have to be used to supplement the efficiency-directed business processes. There is a
connection between anti-processes and the recent movement of “Slow Computing”. For me it
seems that the actor of any work task/process has a need to articulate it, i.e. to make it clear
for her what she is going to do and to formulate the requirements for the expected outcome.
This articulation often takes time, and is thus a good candidate for focusing in slow
computing, whereas the task proper can be rapidly executed by means of computer, when
first properly articulated.
Coper
The title of the concept for a coping with personal projects with multiple outsourced services,
e.g. health services, see the section “Coper” above. Coper has a free association to a
Copernican revolution, because it makes the important shift of the center of the services from
service providers to the citizens (customers).
Hamburger-model of work performance
Hamburger metaphor comes from the two frames surrounding the performance of a work
procedure. Before the work proper can be started, it has to be articulated. Articulation turns
an external description to the internalised one. After the performance the actor has to
evaluate the outcome. The reference to be used in this evaluation is created during the
articulation: does the outcome meet the objectives defined in the articulation? Articulation
and evaluation thus turn out to be like the two sides of the same bread as they are in a
Hamburger, with a beef in between.
This implies that the analysis of work often benefit from a symmetrical approach, in which the
details are studied from both ends in order to find the correspondence of articulation and
evaluation. The work proper then is naturally located between them.
Negativism

7. I introduced the term “Negativism” in the frustration of the label “Anti-positivism” that was
used for any approach that did not subscribe most of the positivist stances. Whereas
positivism aims at defining things in positive terms by stating what the things are, negativism
gives definitions by stating what the things are NOT. Ironically, the term anti-positivism itself
is a negativist construct. The negativist thinking reminds us about the Marxist epistemology
with the special meaning of the negation of negation, that is not necessarily the same as the
original point of departure. There is also a connection to the anti-processes. Anti-processes
attempt at a laissez-faire, i.e. prolonged time of no changes. Maintenance and health care
(what is the difference?) are two examples of the areas in which negativist thinking has
relevance. A Finnish sculptor once was asked whether it is not difficult to create the form in a
big block of stone. No, he answered, all I have to do is to take the extra pieces away. In the
same way, an actor/user may say that he is free to create high quality to the outcome as long
as he does NOT violate the minimum requirements expressed in the process model.
Sleeping labour
Sleeping labour continues the metaphors of living labour and dead labour. Dead labour was
once embedded in the tools and infrastructures to be later used by actors (living labour). This
makes them usable and implies a potential to added value. Dead labour refers to the work of
people who prepared these artefacts. Also information systems can be seen as tools and
infrastructures. Somebody has created them, too (dead labour). In addition, the software can
be seen as a representation of work, but not the work of the developers, but the work of the
users. Such representations have the peculiar property that, when coded as software, they
lend themselves to be executed as a part of the work of the users. Metaphorically, the user can
wake up the “sleeping” representation. This justifies the talking about the information system
as a collection of sleeping labour.
A good delivery of an information system includes therefore a description of the potential
actions that can be done by means of it. This is not a good affordance in terms of operations
with the interface, but a functional affordance of the contents of the actions: what will happen
when I push the Enter button? and can I do even my special tasks with this tool?