are constantly being impacted by the intentions and expectations of their colleagues, the effects of the division of labor and the tools used, as well as their own motivations and needs. The complexity is then to manage to articulate a professional practice that makes sense by “knitting” thier daily activity at the intersection of several activity systems and networks. This “knitting” makes it possible to formalize this extremely rapid, flexible and efficient mode of action (“knots”), which frees itself from the usual spaces and rules of operation, to focus on the moment and concrete needs. These “knots” correspond to the orchestration of a collective, distributed and partially improvised performance between actors or systems of activity that are otherwise weakly connected to each other (Engeström 2008a) (see Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2. Third generation of the activity system. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/bobillierchaumon/digital.zip
2.3.2. Sharing a degree of collaborative intentionality in a multi-mediated situation, a skill in its own right
Shared collaborative intentionality helps us to design how professionals can engage in future collaboration, based on an assessment of how they anticipate, measure and evaluate commitment to investment (Engeström 2004; Edwards 2008). Derived from the criteria of activity theory, this concept is very interesting when defining asynchronous collaborations because it is based on an evaluation of the degree of shared collaborative intentions in a situation, that is, a sufficient degree of shared awareness of the actions to be carried out in a future collaboration (Engeström 2006).
The poly-contextual situations induced by the use of DESNs have a preponderant impact on collaborative dynamics (Engeström et al. 1995) by profoundly modifying and reconfiguring the way the activity is structured, which becomes more fluid (regularly reconfigured), partial (may concern only certain aspects of the object of the activity) and temporary (may concern only a relatively short period of time) (Engeström and Smith 2010). Sufficiently sharing collaborative intentionality with peers and via the system then becomes a means for the professional to adjust and quantify their commitment by weighing, through an analysis of the contingencies of the activity, the potential for collaboration expressed and the traces left on the system and the benefits and costs of their investment in collaboration (Harry et al. 2009; Edwards 2011). The professional, capable of integrating a sufficient understanding of the sharing of collaborative intentionality, is able to anticipate future activity (individual and collective) by identifying whether or not a work object is shared, evaluating the conditions for carrying out the joint actions to be implemented, defining the possible synchronization of actions via the system, anticipating constraints to overcome them and linking these future actions with the history of their activity (Bobillier Chaumon 2013). In contemporary working conditions, having a shared collaborative intentionality could become a precursor to engaging in the activity from a developmental perspective.
2.4. Conclusion
Collaborative platforms and DESNs are not, strictly speaking, technological innovations, since they aggregate technologies that have been in existence since the late 1990s. However, the combination of technologies associated with possible organizational uses profoundly changes the rules of interactions, social codes and collaboration dynamics, which are more fluid and less constant over time.
The principles lauded in the context of the implementation of networks have a major impact on the organization of work, its context and its intelligibility for individuals by multiplying the standards, rules, interlocutors, tools and purposes of work. In this way, work activity loses its centrality under the influence of the mechanics of social networks. At the same time, it intensifies and densifies in terms of flows, volumes and contexts. This induces constant changes in the structuring of the activity and in its organization over time (Engeström 2008a). The asynchronous collaborations resulting from the use of DESNs therefore imply identifying and understanding the expectations of colleagues, knowing how to make various points of view converge and to implement the methods for working collectively and being able to inscribe these actions, however fragmented they may be, in the overall history of individual and collective activity. Under these conditions, the power to act is possible because it reflects the ability of professionals to master this new collaborative environment with a certain degree of re-creation of the situation.
Giving meaning to work in these poly-contextual and multi-mediated situations therefore requires professionals to develop new skills for evaluating and anticipating future collaborative activity. In our opinion, it relies on the ability of professionals to identify a sufficient degree of shared collaborative intentionality.
2.5. References
Alter, N. (2009). Donné et prendre. La coopération en entreprise. Éditions La Découverte, Paris.
Barville-Deromas, N. (2014). Le réseau social numérique... Mais pour quoi faire ? Cas d’une non acceptation technologique. Actes du 18ème Congrès International de Psychologie du Travail de Langue Française, Florence, Italy.
Bobillier Chaumon, M.-E. (2013). Conditions d’usage et facteurs d’acceptation des technologies dans l’activité : questions et perspectives pour la psychologie du travail. Paper, Université Pierre-Mendès France, Grenoble [Online]. Available: http://recherche.univ-lyon2.fr/greps/IMG/pdf/HDR-Bobillier-Nov2013.pdf.
Bobillier Chaumon, M.-E. (2017). Du rôle des TIC dans la transformation digitale de l’activité et de la santé au travail. La revue des conditions de travail, 6, 16–25.
Bobillier Chaumon, M.-E. and Clot, Y. (2016). Clinique de l’usage : les artefacts technologiques comme développement de l’activité : synthèse introductive au dossier. Activites, 13(2).
Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le capital social. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 31(1), 2–3 [Online]. Available: http://www.persee.fr/doc/arss_0335-5322_1980_num_31_1_2069.
Cardon, D. (2008). Le design de la visibilité : un essai de cartographie du web 2.0. Réseaux, 152(6), 93.
Clot, Y. (2008). Travail et pouvoir d’agir. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.
Cohendet, P., Créplet, F., and Dupouët, O. (2003). Innovation organisationnelle, communautés de pratique et communautés épistémiques : le cas de Linux. Revue Française de Gestion, 29(146), 99–121.
Conaldi, G. and Lomi, A. (2013). The dual network structure of organizational problem solving: A case study on open source software development. Social Networks, 35(2), 237–250.
Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engeström, Y., Gallagher, T., and Ludvigsen, S.R. (2009). Activity Theory in Practice. Promoting Learning Across Boundaries and Agencies. Routledge, London.
Détienne, F., Barcellini, F., and Burkhardt, J.-M. (2010). La conception dans les communautés en ligne : questionnements thématiques et méthodologiques sur ces nouvelles pratiques. In Ergonomie, conception de produits et services médiatisés, Valléry, G., Le Port, M.-C., and Zouinar, M. (eds). Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.
Edwards, A. (2008). Improving Inter-professional Collaborations: Learning to do Multi-agency Work. Routledge, London
