Content uploaded by Marén Schorch
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marén Schorch on May 26, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Syed, H. A., Schorch, M., Ankenbauer, S. A., Hassan, S., Meisner, K., Stein, M., Skudelny,
S., Karasti, H., Pipek, V. (2021): Infrastructuring for organizational resilience: Experiences
and perspectives for business continuity. In: Proceedings of the 19th European Conference
on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: The International Venue on Practice-centred
Computing on the Design of Cooperation Technologies - Workshops, Reports of the
European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies (ISSN 2510-2591), DOI:
10.18420/ecscw2021-wsmc02
Infrastructuring for organizational
resilience: Experiences and perspectives
for business continuity
Hussain Abid Syed1
Marén Schorch2
Sam Addison Ankenbauer3
Sohaib Hassan4
Konrad Meisner5
Martin Stein6
Sascha Skudelny7
Helena Karasti8
Volkmar Pipek9
University of Siegen, Germany1,2,4,5,7,9; IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark8;
SME Graduate School, Siegen, Germany4,5; University of Michigan School of
Information, USA3; Fraunhofer FIT, Sankt Augustin, Germany6
{hussain.syed, maren.schorch, sohaib.hassan, konrad.meisner, sascha.skudelny,
volkmar.pipek@uni-siegen.de}, hkar@itu.dk, samank@umich.edu,
stein@openinc.de
Abstract. This workshop discusses organizational resilience and resilient infrastructures
by uniting researchers, professionals, and experts from various disciplines. Workplace
studies and organizational settings have always been an integral theme in computer-
2
supported cooperative work (CSCW) research. This workshop hopes to broaden this
research horizon by overlapping the multidisciplinary perspectives of resilience and crisis
research with human-computer interaction (HCI), CSCW, organizational, and business
studies. The COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent physical and social constraints have
been detrimental to the activities of different organizations, especially to small and medium
enterprises (SMEs). SMEs must recognize and search for opportunities to adapt to this
crisis by developing resilient organizational infrastructures. These adaptations can be
crucial to overcoming the current disruptions challenging the continued existence keeping
in view the intrinsic diversification of various business and industrial sectors. How
organizational infrastructures can be designed to instill resilient properties like adaptive
capacity, self-adjustment and continuity? We intend to focus on bringing this discussion
under the umbrella of CSCW to explore the potentials of collaboration and cooperative
work in organizational infrastructure. Through this workshop, we offer research prospects
by applying organizational resilience theories to study organizational infrastructure and
infrastructuring activities, which can be used for their prospective transformations into
resilient infrastructures.
Introduction
With rapidly increasing disasters such as climate change and escalating cyber-
crimes due to the digitally exposed nature of modern business, crisis is inevitable.
The on-going COVID-19 pandemic has further escalated business concerns by
altering daily routines and work practices around the world, ultimately disrupting
how organizations conduct business. Especially notable is the small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) sector that is extremely vulnerable in times of crisis and is often
the least prepared of all the organizational sectors (Jones & Proverbs, 2008).
SMEs are integral to the modern economy and make up a significant portion of
the world’s businesses. In the European Union (EU), for example, 99% of all the
enterprises are SMEs (European Commission, 2017). Due to their significant role
in economic activity, SMEs are considered a key driver for the growth and
economic development of countries, especially by stimulating innovation, job
creation, and social integration of local communities (European Commission,
2017). An SME in the EU is defined as an organization with less than 250
employees and less than (or equal to) a €50 million turnover, whereas in the United
States, SMEs are classified as firms having fewer than 500 employees (OECD,
2005). Despite having different definitions across economies, SMEs are noted for
their liabilities of “smallness” and they often operate in uncertain environments
(Damanpour, 1992). Further, in contrast to large organizations, SMEs are peculiar
due to more superficial organizational structures, limited financial assets and funds,
centralized decision-making, and the high reliability of employees' ability to get
their job done (Thong & Yap 1995).
3
Crisis literature entails that SMEs do not have the resources and technical
systems often equated with resilience capabilities amidst the ever-increasing threat
of natural and human-made disasters. Despite being agile and flexible, SMEs may
need to become more strategic driven in their approach to managing threats and
extreme events (Sullivan-Taylor & Branicki, 2011). This ideology of
organizational transformation is coordinated with the expectation in CSCW as
calibrated in the reflections on 25 years of ethnography in CSCW research by
Blomberg and Karasti (2013). The authors reflected on developing new concepts
to help workplace and organizational studies understand collaboration in complex,
widely distributed, temporally expanded, and large-scale settings. These settings
are analogous to the challenges imposed on business organizations in emergent
scenarios or recent times with an on-going pandemic, multiple phases and forms of
lockdowns, and further limitations.
The lack of adequate preparation and resources exposes SMEs to threats and
disruptions that may jeopardize organizational sustainability and individual welfare
(Edward, 2010; Barnett & Pratt, 2000). Bhamra et al. (2011) connect the concept
of sustainability with resilience. Holling (1973) introduced the term 'resilience'
from an ecological context, and since then, it has been applied to various contexts
and application domains. While the term may be defined in different ways
depending on context, the concept of resilience revolves around the ability of the
subject to return to a stable state after a disruption. However, the organizational
point of view holds the idea of resilience, signifying its application to both
individual and organizational responses to disturbances and threats (Bhamra et al.,
2011; Braes & Brooks, 2010). It can be further defined as an organization's
capability to prevent, respond effectively to, and survive an unforeseen situation.
The ability to anticipate, adapt to, and take advantage of long-term trends,
opportunities and challenges and potentially thrive in an environment of change
and uncertainty. Also, fundamental learning from past disruptive or disastrous
events is crucial for an organization's business continuity (Egner et al., 2015).
Under the lens of infrastructuring and comprehensive range infrastructure
research in CSCW, the work infrastructure of an individual or an organization is
the entirety of devices, tools, technologies, standards, conventions, and protocols
on which the individual worker or the collective rely to carry out the tasks and
achieve the goals assigned to them. (Pipek and Wulf, 2009). According to Star and
Bowker (2002), infrastructures have a spatial and temporal reach and scope, are
embedded in other social and technological structures, shape and are shaped by
conventions of practice, and, most notably, are invisible and become visible upon
breakdown. These intrinsic peculiarities of an infrastructure substantiate several
aspects of an organization. Simultaneously, the notion of breakdown is inclined to
the idea of disruption and change, hence indicating the context of resilience.
According to Kjeld Schmidt (1994), the formal organization is merely a governance
structure of certain aspects of cooperative work's multifaceted realities. Likewise,
4
the organizational infrastructures constitute overlapping layers of cyber,
knowledge, information, communication, technological, collaborative, work-
oriented, etc. infrastructures. A substantial amount of research in CSCW excavate
the inner workings of cyber, information, and knowledge-intensive infrastructures,
which are directly and indirectly applicable to organizational infrastructures (Korn
et al., 2017; Ribes & Lee, 2007; Karasti et al., 2010; Karasti & Blomberg, 2017;
Randall et al., 2015; Ribes, 2014; Pipek & Wulf, 2009, Bietz et al., 2012).
Different components within an organizational infrastructure are integrated
through standardized interfaces enabling the work practitioners to channel merits
like openness and heterogeneity (Hanseth & Lundberg, 2001), versatility and
reflexivity (Pipek and Wulf, 2009), longevity and stability (Zimmerman & Finholt,
2007) and expertise sharing (Ley et al., 2014). Information technology (IT)
adoption can make businesses adaptive and flexible, which is also coherent with
the concept of organizational resilience (Pipek and Wulf, 2009; Ley et al., 2014).
However, small enterprises do not clearly and fully understand the weakness of
their IT capability, and this reason often decreases their willingness to adopt
information technology (Chang et al., 2010, Lewkowicz & Liron, 2019).
Infrastructures can also be explored from the viewpoint of disruption or change
(Wiedenhöfer, 2011; Soden & Palen 2016). Infrastructures remain transparent (and
mostly invisible) once established, "reappearing" only at moments of upheaval or
breakdown (Jackson at al., 2007). This inherent imperceptibility in infrastructure
ensures continuity and flexibility in activity spheres. However, when a point of
infrastructure is reached due to disruption or breakdown, it temporarily generates a
stronger implicit tie between the activity spheres, causing the infrastructure to
become an apparent resonating change in a stronger sense of urgency regarding
infrastructure improvements (Ludwig et al., 2018). Many infrastructuring
processes and phenomena emerge from the installed base (from what is already
there) and are strongly influenced by the network of existing dependencies (Karasti
et al., 2018). These infrastructuring features articulate the inherent traits of
organizational resilience like vulnerability, situation awareness, and most
importantly, adaptive capacity to respond to change, disruption, or breakdown
(McManus et al., 2008; Hollnagel et al., 2011; Soden & Palen 2016; Coaffee &
Clarke, 2017). The manifestations of organizational resilience and organizational
infrastructures have overlaps and present unbound research opportunities towards
developing robust, flexible, and adaptable infrastructures. The workshop aims to
help build a richer understanding of issues related to the analysis and design of
resilient infrastructures:
(1) bringing the discussion on organizational resilience under the umbrella of
CSCW to explore the potentials of collaboration and cooperative work in
organizational infrastructures
5
(2) discussing salient features of organizational infrastructures concerning
resilience theories
(3) the issues, theories, and methods to improve organizational infrastructures
make them self-adjusting and evolving networks of activities, knowledge, tools,
services, etc.
Topics and Participation
To achieve these aims, the workshop will involve a collective sharing and analysis
of case studies and experience from HCI, CSCW, business studies, organization
theory, SME research, digital transformation, crisis informatics, and resilience
research. We invite participants to submit short position papers between 2-4 pages
comprising one or more case studies, empirical research, or at least some
description of infrastructure or organizational setting that the workshop participant
is familiar with and can discuss at the workshop. The position paper should also
include some analysis of that setting. We hope to articulate research dimensions
around organizational infrastructuring that is akin to the research arenas in
organizational resilience.
The short position papers will be distributed to all the participants before the
workshop to allow preparation beforehand and to foster intense discussions at the
main event. The organizers will facilitate discussion by providing some prominent
and overlapping themes identified in advance from the papers. To create a
productive setting in the workshop right away, we would like to encourage you to
reflect on the following issues: field of your research or/and development, SME or
organizational context of the case study, the understanding of resilience strategies,
theories, the concept of infrastructure, infrastructuring and methods concerning
your research. We hope to address topics (questions) within this work such as (but
not limited to):
• Barriers to resilient infrastructures
• Infrastructural evolution over time
• Disruption, change, and innovation as stimuli for infrastructural
evolution
• Impact of resonance activities on organizational resilience
• Improvised collaborations for organizational resilience
• Collaborative organizational resilience
• Collaboration in coping and recovery work
• Collaborative innovation through and by infrastructural inversion
• Implications of digital transformation on organizational infrastructure
• Implications for resilient organizational infrastructure design
• Strategies for continuity in crisis
• Role of situation awareness in business continuity
6
• Digitalization and the increasing vulnerabilities in organizational
infrastructure
• Internet of things for improved organizational resilience
• Infrastructural obsolescence
Workshop Schedule and Structure
The temporary event structure of our two-days interactive workshop will be as
follows (might be changed based on the number of participants or in case of
pandemic restricted online event):
Workshop initiation: The co-organizers will make the first pitch with a formal
outline of the workshop, goals, and expected outcomes.
Interactive case study analysis: The presenters will present their case studies for
discussion and brief meta-level analysis within the group in an interactive exercise.
This exercise aims to familiarize the group with individual experiences and open
discussion towards topics to be considered in later sessions. Intuitively, this does
not allow in-depth exploration of the instances but is meant to build up subject
motivation with the group while discovering rigorous discussion themes.
Interactive brainstorming session: We will then continue by picking as a group
issues that warrant further discussion. We will brainstorm multiple exploration
dimensions for the chosen topics and discover open questions, inclusion, and
exclusion criteria for a thorough discussion.
Breakout group discussion: In the afternoon, we will break into smaller groups.
Each group will be assigned a topic and will be moderated by a smaller set of co-
organizers. The issues will be explored in slightly more depth, again running them
through the example set of case studies and considering the different aspects that
emerge.
Plenary session: We will get together after the group work, reporting shortly about
the groups' different discussions and outcomes.
Wrap-up: The co-chairs will present concluding remarks and the takeaways from
the workshop.
The organizers will also discuss the possibility of a joint publication with the
participants to make the findings available for the CSCW research community. The
event structure is not distributed between the working hours, refreshments, and
lunch breaks. This information will be disseminated to the participants before the
workshop, depending upon the workshop's mode (In-venue or online).
Workshop targets:
• Case studies of the participants will be explored.
• Key issues and workable concepts will be identified.
7
• A joint publication will be planned.
Duration of the workshop: Two day split sessions on 7th and 8th June (four hours
each day with breaks), within conference preferred timeslots i.e., 3 -7 pm CET
Workshop format: Digital via Zoom and interactive tools like Miro etc.
Means of recruiting and selecting participants:
The call for participation will be advertised through the conference website
(https://bcmecscw.kompetenzzentrum-siegen.digital/) and social media channels. The
advert will also be sent to respective mailing lists. A Workshop website will be
established where the workshop proposal is posted together with position papers
and other workshop information. Position paper submission will be via email.
Maximum number of participants: 15
Workshop Organizers
These co-organizers have already committed to the workshop. We have pending
requests from international organizers, which will be included in the camera-ready
version and website.
Hussain Abid Syed (corresponding chair) is a Ph.D. researcher in the BMBF
junior research group KONTIKAT at the University of Siegen, Germany. He is a
computer scientist with a specialization in software technology and data science.
His interests include human-machine interaction (HCI), computer-supported-
cooperative work (CSCW), model-driven software development (MDSD), and
machine learning (ML). He is keen on the application of computing techniques and
software technologies for the enhancement of organizational resilience. His current
research focus is to tailor resilience practices to the context of small and medium
enterprises. He collaborates with the enterprises employing qualitative and
quantitative research methods to generate steady requirements for resilient
infrastructures.
Marén Schorch is a Postdoctoral Researcher and leader of the BMBF junior
research group KONTIKAT at the University of Siegen, Germany. She is a
sociologist specializing in qualitative research methods and disaster research. Her
current research deals with continuity and (digital, social, economic) change, and
emergency preparedness. She has published a wide range of articles on her varied
research, co-edited the book "Learning and Calamities. Practices, Interpretations,
Patterns." (Routledge 2015), co-organized several workshops such as on ECSCW
2020 and 2011, CSCW 2014 and CSCW 2017, COOP 2016 and GROUP 2016,
held two masterclasses at ECSCW 2019 and also acts as AC and reviewer for those
conferences (ECSCW, CSCW, CHI etc.).
8
Sam Addison Ankenbauer is a writer and qualitative researcher. His interests
broadly investigate how technologies can mediate traditional spaces and how these
physical spaces are currently adapting to newer technologies. His current research
explores the tensions between technologies, physical spaces, and the people who
utilize technologies and inhabit spaces. Sam is a doctoral student at the University
of Michigan School of Information. He is also the author of The Wailing for
Liverpool University Press.
Sohaib S. Hassan is a member of the BMBF junior research group KONTIKAT at
the University of Siegen, Germany. He is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the School
of Economic Disciplines, University of Siegen. He is also the Research Coordinator
& Advisor at SME Graduate School, Faculty III, University of Siegen. His research
interests include Strategic Management, SMEs, Innovation, Digital
Transformation, Business Continuity Management
Martin Stein is a Post-Doc researcher at the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied
Information Technology FIT, Germany and managing director of open.INC, a
startup focussing on IIoT-solutions. He received his PhD from the School of
Economic Disciplines at the University of Siegen in the department of Information
Systems and New Media. His research is centred around the topics of mobility
support, complex information processing and visualization and participatory
design. In his most recent work, he focuses on the impact of industrial internet of
things (IIoT) technologies on the organizational setting and qualifications needs of
SMEs. He (co)-authored several conference and journal papers, including
publications at ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, International Conference on Supporting Group Work,
Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP). Further, he served as
associate chair for MobileHCI Late Breaking Work 2017 and as reviewer for, e.g.
JCSCW, ACM CHI, ACM CSCW, ECSCW, COOP and IS-EUD.
Konrad Meisner is a Ph.D. student at the university of Siegen at the Chair for
Entrepreneurship and Family Business and a junior researcher at the KontiKat
researcher group. He worked in strategic management in an SME, preparing
innovation and business development on a long-term orientation. He further on
studied SME Management with a focus on family businesses. His current field of
research lies within the digitalization of SMEs and family business, innovation
management and gender-studies.
Sascha Skudelny is a research fellow at the Institute for Media Research and the
iSchool at the University of Siegen. He studied media sciences and human medicine
and is doing his doctorate at the Institute for Microsystems Technology. His
9
publications and research focus on security communication, collaborative
technologies, process and communication modeling of complex systems, user
experience/usability design and social media analysis/social network analysis as
well as business resilience management and social (governance) resilience
management.
Helena Karasti is Professor in the Department of Digital Design at IT University
(ITU) of Copenhagen, Denmark. Her research interests include infrastructuring,
information/knowledge/research infrastructures, critical data studies, and
integrations of ethnography and design. She has widely published in the fields of
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Participatory Design (PD) and
Science and Technology Studies (STS). She leads the Responsible Infrastructuring
research group at ITU.
Volkmar Pipek is a Professor of CSCW and HCI at the University of Siegen,
Germany, and has widely published books and articles in CSCW, with a specific
interest in infrastructuring. He is also the co-leader of the project "INF-
Infrastructural Concepts for Research in Cooperative Media" at the Collaborative
Research Centre 1187: Media of Cooperation and mentor of the BMBF junior
research group KONTIKAT at the University of Siegen.
References
Barnett, C. and Pratt, M. G. (2000): From threat‐rigidity to flexibility ‐ Toward a learning model of
autogenic crisis in organizations, Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 13,
no. 1, pp. 74-88. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810010310258.
Bhamra, R., Samir D. and Burnard, K. (2011): Resilience: the concept, a literature review, and future
directions, International Journal of Production Research, vol. 49, no. 18, pp. 5375-5393.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.563826
Bietz, M. J., Ferro, T. and Lee, C. P. (2012): Sustaining the development of cyberinfrastructure: An
organization adapting to change, Proceedings of the ACM Conference of Computer Supported
Cooperative Work (CSCW), pp. 901-910. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145339
Blomberg, J. and Karasti, H. (2013): Reflections on 25 Years of Ethnography in CSCW, Computer
Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 22, no. 4-6, pp. 373-423.
Braes, B. and Brooks, D. (2010): Organizational resilience: a propositional study to understand and
identify the essential concepts, Proceedings of the 3rd Australian Security and Intelligence
Conference, pp. 14–22. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4225/75/579ec432099ca
Chang, S-I., Hung, S.-Y., Yen, D. C. and Lee, P.-J. (2010): Critical Factors of ERP Adoption for
Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises: An Empirical Study, Journal of Global Information
Management, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 82–106. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4018/jgim.2010070104.
Coaffee J. and Clarke J. (2017): Realising Critical Infrastructure Resilience, in I. Linkov and J.
Palma-Oliveira (eds): Resilience and Risk. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C:
Environmental Security, Springer, Dordrecht, pp 359-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
024-1123-2_13
10
Damanpour F. (1992): Organizational Size and Innovation, Organization Studies, vol. 13, no. 3, pp.
375-402. doi:10.1177/017084069201300304
Deverell, E. (2010): Flexibility and Rigidity in Crisis Management and Learning at Swedish Public
Organizations, Public Management Review, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 679-700.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1471903100363394
Egner, H., Schorch, M. and Voss, M. (eds.) (2015): Learning and Calamities: Practices,
Interpretations, Patterns, Learning and Calamities, Routledge, New York/London.
European Commission, 2017, Retrieved January 22, 2021, from
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes_en
European Commission, 2017, Retrieved January 22, 2021, from
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/business-friendlyenvironment/sme-definition_en
Hanseth, O. and N. Lundberg (2001): Designing Work Oriented Infrastructures, Computer
Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, vol. 10, no. 3-4,
pp. 347–372.
Hollin, C. S. (1973): Resilience and stability of ecological systems, reprint from Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, vol. 4, pp. 1-23. http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/26/1/RP-73-003.pdf
Hollnagel, E., Pariès, J. and Wreathall, J. (eds.) (2011): Resilience engineering in practice:
A Guidebook, Ashgat, Surrey UK.
Jackson, S. J., Edwards, P. N., Bowker, G. C. and Knobel, C. P. (2007): Understanding
infrastructure: history, heuristics, and cyberinfrastructure policy, First Monday, vol. 12,
no. 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i6.1904
Jones, K. and Proverbs, D. (2008): Investigating SME resilience and their adaptive capacities to
extreme weather events: A literature review and synthesis, Building resilience.
http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/18262/1/SMEs.pdf
Karasti, H., Pipek, V. and Bowker, G. C. (2018): An Afterword to 'Infrastructuring and
Collaborative Design’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 27, no. 2,
pp. 267-289. DOI: 10.1007 / s10606-017-9305- x
Karasti, H. and Blomberg, J. (2017): Studying Infrastructuring Ethnographically, Computer
Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 233-265.
Karasti, H., Baker, K. S. and Millerand, F. (2010): Infrastructure Time: Long-term Matters in
Collaborative Development, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 19, no. 3,
pp. 377-415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-010-9113-z
Korn, M., Schorch, M., Pipek, V., Bietz, M., Østerlund, C., Procter, R., Ribes, D. and Williams, R.
(2017): E-Infrastructures for Research Collaboration: The Case of the Social Sciences and
Humanities, ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social
Computing (CSCW '17 Companion), New York, USA, pp. 415-420.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3022198.3022655
Lewkowicz, M. and Liron, R. (2019): The Missing “Turn to Practice” in the Digital Transformation
of Industry, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 28, pp. 655-683.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-019-09347-y
Ley, B., Ludwig, T., Pipek, V., Randall, D., Reuter, C. and Wiedenhoefer, T. (2014): Information
and Expertise Sharing in Inter-Organizational Crisis Management, Computer Supportorted
Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, vol. 23, no. 4-6, pp. 347-387.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-014-9205-2
Ludwig, T., Pipek, V. and Tolmie, P. (2018): Designing for Collaborative Infrastructuring:
Supporting Resonance Activities, Proceedings of the ACM Human Computer Interaction,
issue CSCW, vol. 2, article no. 113, New York, NY, USA, DOI: 10.1145 / 3274382
11
McManus, S., Seville, E., Vargo, J. and Brunsdon, D. (2008): Facilitated Process for Improving
Organizational Resilience, Natural Hazards Revue, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 81-90.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2008)9:2(81).
OECD (2005): OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2005.
Pipek, V. and Wulf, V. (2009): Infrastructuring: Towards an Integrated Perspective on the Design
and Use of Information Technology, Journal of the Association of Information System (JAIS),
vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 306-332.
Randall, D. P., Diamant, E. I. and Lee, C. P. (2015): Creating Sustainable Cyberinfrastructures,
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
(CHI) ACM Press, pp. 1759-1768. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702216
Ribes, D. (2014): The kernel of research infrastructure, Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference
on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, ACM, pp. 574-587.
Ribes, D. and Lee, C. P. (2010): Sociotechnical Studies of Cyberinfrastructure and e-Research:
Current Themes and Future Trajectories, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 19,
no. 3, pp. 231-244.
Schmidt, K. (1994): The organization of cooperative work: beyond the “Leviathan” conception of
the organization of cooperative work, Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer
supported cooperative work (CSCW '94), ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 101-112.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/192844.192883
Soden, R. and Palen, L. (2016): Infrastructure in the Wild: What Mapping in Post-Earthquake
Nepal Reveals about Infrastructural Emergence, Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'16), May 07 - 12, 2016, San Jose, CA, USA,
ACM Press, pp. 2796-2807. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858545
Star, S. L. and Bowker, G. C. (2002): “How to infrastructure”, in L. A. Lievrouw and S. Livingstone
(eds.): Handbook of New Media - Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs, SAGE Pub.,
London, UK, 2002, pp. 151-162.
Sullivan-Taylor, B. and Branicki, L. (2011): Creating resilient SMEs: why one size might not fit all,
International Journal of Production Research, vol. 49, no. 18, pp. 5565-5579.
Thong, J.Y. and Yap, C.S. (1995): CEO characteristics, organizational characteristics, and
information technology adoption in small businesses, Omega, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 429-442.
Wiedenhöfer, T., Reuter, C., Ley, B. and Pipek, V. (2011): Inter-organizational crisis management
infrastructures for electrical power breakdowns. 8th International ISCRAM conference, May
2011, pp. 1-5.
Zimmerman, A. and Finholt, T. A. (2007): Growing an Infrastructure: The Role of Gateway
Organizations in Cultivating New Communities of Users, Proceedings of ACM International
Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP) 2007, pp. 239-248.
