Goldkuhl and Lyytinen had coined the term language-action perspective in the early 1980s to describe an approach to software design from the perspective of how humans perform actions using software. Whereas Winograd and Flores were primarily concerned by rationalistic thinking in AI, this European movement originated in a reflection on the rationalistic paradigm in the field of information systems. This paradigm emphasized storage and message structures, and analysis of content in the form of objectivistic conceptual modeling.

The fundamental assumption of LAP is that language is not only used for exchanging information about the world, as in reports and statements, but also for changing the (social) world, for example, by means of promises, orders, and declarations. LAP emphasizes the patterns of speech acts by which humans create a common understanding, and how they coordinate their activities on the basis of this common understanding.

In 1986, Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores published Understanding Computers and Cognition—A New Foundation for Design [3]. They offered a sharp critique of the field of artificial intelligence, which was completing 30 years of pursuit of its Holy Grail of expert systems software and other intelli- gent systems without many demonstrable results. At the same time, they pointed out a new perspective on computing: the language-action perspective (LAP), as defined a few years earlier by Goran Goldkuhl and Kalle Lyytinen. At the core of this perspective is the question: How can IT play a role in improving human communication in organizations and in society as a whole?

Moreover, communication and organization are closely intertwined: communication is not something that just occurs within an organization, because organizations themselves emerge in communication [2].

1. Taylor, J. Rethinking the Theory of Organizational Communication: How to Read an Organization. Ablex, Norwood, 1993.

The conclusion that software is unlikely to ever exhibit intelligent behavior was reached by a powerful new interpretation of skillful action based in the work of modern philosophers. The essence of their interpretation is that skillful action always occurs in a context set by conversations, and in the conversations people perform speech acts by which they commit to and generate the action.

Expert behavior requires an exquisite sensitivity to context and an ability to know what to commit to. Computing machines, which are purposely designed to process symbols independent of their context, have no hope of becoming experts. Winograd and Flores said that questions on the AI agenda at the time, such as "Can a machine think?", are meaningless. They proposed instead that we use our understanding of action-through-language to improve the way we design computers to effectively support human practice.

Over the years it became clear that communication is much more complex than a naïve speech-act theory would suggest. Communicative action draws heavily on the context. A certain message can bundle several speech acts, or maintain an intentional ambiguity. Whereas early LAP implementations have made a strong case for communicational transparency, it should be recognized that the inherent dynamics of communication make adaptability equally important (see the article by Te'eni in this section).

Winograd and Flores illustrated how a language-action perspective can guide design with a model they called the "Conversation for Action." This is a loop in which one person makes a request that is agreed to and fulfilled by another person. This universal pattern of human communication was a significant contribution to the developing field of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) and the basis of the Coordinator workflow tool. However, there was also criticism. For Lucy Suchman, the Coordinator was not an enabler of human responsibility but rather an instrument of management control based on a rationalistic perception of work [1]. In retrospect, it is fair to say the speech-act based approach of communication indeed had a slightly rationalistic bias. However, the bottom line remains relevant: not only that commitments are being made in conversations, but that this important aspect of communication should be recognized when we analyze or try to change organizational processes.