<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Christine A Halverson</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Erickson, Thomas</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mark S. Ackerman</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Behind the Help Desk: Evolution of a Knowledge Management System in a Large Organization</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW&#039;04)</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">design approaches</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">distributed cognition</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ethnography</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">FAQ</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">frequently asked questions</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">help desk</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Complete</style></url></web-urls></urls><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">304–313</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper examines the way in which a knowledge management system (KMS)-by which we mean the people, processes and software-came into being and evolved in response to a variety of shifting social, technical and organizational pressures. We draw upon data from a two year ethnographic study of a sophisticated help desk to trace the KMS from its initial conception as a &quot;Common Problems&quot; database for help desk personnel, to its current instantiation as a set of Frequently Asked Questions published on an intranet for help desk clients. We note how shifts in management, organizational structure, incentives, software technologies, and other factors affected the development of the system. This study sheds light on some of the difficulties that accompany the implementation of CSCW systems, and provides an analysis of how such systems are often designed by bricolage.&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mark S. Ackerman</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Christine A Halverson</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Organizational memory as objects, processes, and trajectories: An examination of organizational memory in use</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">boundary objects</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">collective memory</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">contextualization</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">corporate memory</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">distributed cognition</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">information reuse</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">knowledge management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">memory reuse</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">organizational memory</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">trajectories of information</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Complete</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">13</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">155–189</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;For proper knowledge management, organizations must consider how knowledge is kept and reused. The term organizational memory is due for an overhaul. Memory appears to be everywhere in organizations; yet, the term has been limited to only a few uses. Based on an ethnographic study of a telephone hotline group, this paper presents a micro-level, distributed cognition analysis of two hotline calls, the work activity surrounding the calls, and the memory used in the work activity. Drawing on the work of Star, Hutchins, and Strauss, the paper focuses on issues of applying past information for current use. Our work extends Strauss&#039; and Hutchins&#039; trajectories to get at the understanding of potential future use by participants and its role in current information storage. We also note the simultaneously shared provenance and governance of multiple memories – human and technical. This analysis and the theoretical framework we construct should be to be useful in further efforts in describing and analyzing organizational memory within the context of knowledge management efforts.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Christine A Halverson</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mark S. Ackerman</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&quot;Yeah, the Rush Ain&#039;T Here Yet &quot; Take a Break&quot;: Creation and Use of an Artifact As Organizational Memory</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS&#039;03)</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">dcog</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">distributed cognition</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">expertise sharing</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">information maintenance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">information reuse</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">knowledge artifacts</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">resource evolution</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">socio-technical resources</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">trajectories of use</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">01/2003</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Complete</style></url></web-urls></urls><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">113.2–</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;important to understand how things become adopted as memory resources in organizations. In this paper, we describe the genesis and use of an artifact that became a memory resource for a wide range of activities. We discuss how the creation and use of the rush cheat sheet (RCS) and its associated representations at Dallas Ft. Worth TRACON brought together information and expert knowledge across organizational boundaries. Multiorganizational information became synthesized in a composite that could be used as a resource by the contributing organizations, acting as a boundary object. However, it is multiple representations of the same data that enable it to be so used. Using distributed cognition theory, we examined the conditions under which data transforms from an internal resource to a boundary object; speculating about domain generalization.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ackerman, Mark S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Halverson, Christine A.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reexamining Organizational Memory</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Communications of the ACM</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">dcog</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">distributed cognition</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">distributed cognition theory</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">field study</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">organizational memory</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Complete</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">43</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">58–64</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Reconceptualizing how an interpersonal memory—particularly one including people and technology—may be defined.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;After nearly 10 years of research, “organizational memory” (OM) has become overworked and confused. Burdened by a practical wish to reuse organizational experience, researchers have often ignored critical functions of an organization’s memory in order to focus on only a few methods for augmenting memory. It is time for a reexamination.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In this article we step back and investigate where memory exists currently within an organizational setting, rather than focusing on potential technical enhancements. In order to accomplish this we study OM within a telephone helpline that answers human-resource questions at a well-established Silicon Valley company&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mark S. Ackerman</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Christine A Halverson</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Considering an Organization&#039;s Memory</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the 1998 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW&#039;98)</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">collective memory</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">computer-supported cooperative work</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">distributed cognition</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">expertise sharing</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">group memory</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">information sharing</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">knowledge management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">knowledge sharing</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">organizational memory</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1998</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11/1998</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Complete</style></url></web-urls></urls><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">39–48</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The term organizational memory is due for an overhaul. Memory appears to be everywhere in organizations; yet, the term has been limited to a few uses. In this paper we examine what memory in an organization really is. Based on an ethnographic study of a telephone hotline group, this paper presents a micro-level analysis of a hotline call, the work activity surrounding the call, and the memory used in the work activity. We do this analysis from the viewpoint of distributed cognition theory, finding it fruitful for an understanding of an organization’s memory.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>