Making Work

This provocative statement by David Wellman, a sociologist of labor, can be read as a kind of challenge to work researchers. The sense in which it rings true is particularly remarkable given the large and growing body of literature dedicated to work-flow modeling, business process reengineering, and other methods aimed at representing work in the service of transforming it. At the same time that we take Wellman's statement as a call to action, however, we need to reflect carefully on the kinds of secrecy that surround specific knowledges and experiences of working practice and the implications of making them visible. The notion of secrecy implies things known differentially among different actors, usually because those who hold the secret deliberately withhold it from others. Without taking over the connotations of collusion in this sense of secrecy , we can ask why it might be not only inevitable but also valuable that members of an organization know their own work in ways that others positioned differently in the organization do not. The premise that we have special authority in relation to our own fields of knowledge and experience suggests we should have the ability to shape not only how we work but how our work appears to others. Self-representation on this view is a form of empowerment. The way in which people work is not always apparent. Too often, assumptions are made as to how tasks are per formed rather than u n e a r t h i n g t h e u n d e r l y i n g w o r k p r a c t i c e s. By making the work visible, designers create a more intimate view of the workplace landscape. Visible L u c y S u c h m a n 1 It is on this premise, for example, that Brigitte Jordan and her colleagues have been developing what they call " workplace interaction analysis laboratories, " as a forum within which front-line workers themselves are able to reflect critically on the design of their own working practices and associated technologies. On interaction analysis , see [12].