# "They've given us so many tools". Movements in French civil security's collaborative Ecologies of Artifacts

Lisa Formentini, Matthieu Tixier, François Charoy

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Lisa Formentini, Matthieu Tixier, François Charoy. "They've given us so many tools". Movements in French civil security's collaborative Ecologies of Artifacts. 2025. hal-05372573

HAL Id: hal-05372573

https://hal.science/hal-05372573v1

Preprint submitted on 19 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
"They've given us so many tools". Movements in French civil security's collaborative Ecologies of Artifacts

Formentini Lisa<sup>1,2*</sup>, Matthieu Tixier<sup>2†</sup> and Francois Charoy<sup>1†</sup>

**Abstract**

In this paper, we investigate the evolutions of digital tools and collaborative practices in a French regional civil security service (SDIS) and its partners (fire-fighters, gendarmes, emergency health services, and local government). Through the lens of Ecologies of Artifacts (EoA), we analyze such evolutions as "movements" within complex socio-technical collaborative environment. Drawing on empirical material collected through the observation of an inter-service training, three on-site visits, and 40 interviews with 33 different professionals, we characterise a dense, redundant, interconnected, and misunderstood EoA. We identify several movements in its evolutive EoA: personal-to-organizational, outside-introduction, top-down, bottom-up, horizontal, suppression, realignment, replacement, as well as their associated ripple effects, and accelerating factors. From our findings and previous research, we discuss the adaptability of the EoA, the movements' emerging features at the different levels of EoA, and generalizability to other contexts. We advocate for a movement-sensitive design approach, which means supporting tools integration within existing EoA rather than replacing them outright.

**Keywords:** artifact ecologies, collaboration, civil security, movement, zombie artifacts, movement-sensitive design

<footnote n="1"><sup>1</sup>*Université de Lorraine, Inria, LORIA, Nancy, 54000, France.*</footnote>

<footnote n="2"><sup>2</sup>Université Technologique de Troyes, Troyes, 10387, France.</footnote>

<footnote>*Corresponding author(s). E-mail(s): lisa.formentini@inria.fr;</footnote>

<footnote>Contributing authors: matthieu.tixier@utt.fr; francois.charoy@loria.fr;</footnote>

<footnote>†These authors contributed equally to this work.</footnote>
# 1 Introduction

Organizations today operate within increasingly complex socio-technical environments where interdependent assemblages of software tools, platforms, and infrastructures are continuously evolving (Lyle et al. 2020; Oleksik et al. 2012). As numerous CSCW field studies have demonstrated, the introduction and appropriation of new tools (Bødker et al. 2016; Bardram and Bossen 2005; Gaglio et al. 2016; Handel and Poltrock 2011; Tang et al. 2015) can take diverse forms and produce a wide range of consequences. However, the introduction of new tools represents only one of many dynamics shaping these environments. Other circumstances, such as the decommissioning of tools (Duckert et al. 2025) or their temporary sharing across teams (Rossitto et al. 2014; Larsen-Ledet et al. 2020), have become a rich area of inquiry for Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), particularly for understanding real-world, long-term collaboration mediated by ever-changing digital ecosystems (Bødker et al. 2016; Munkvold 2023). Our work focuses on the study of how the introduction or removal of artifacts drive evolution in complex collaborative socio-technical environments, a phenomenon we conceptualize as *movements*.

Following Cormi et al. (2022) and Formentini et al. (2025), we adopt the theoretical lens of Ecologies of Artifacts (EoA) to analyze complex collaborative work settings. This perspective enables the examination of shared, multi-level, cross-group artifacts (Jarrahi et al. 2017; Rossitto et al. 2014; Bødker et al. 2016), and builds on the notion of "installed base" (Aanestad et al. 2017) to explore the ongoing transformations that occur within these sociotechnical landscapes (Formentini et al. 2025; Bødker and Klokmose 2012).

We ground our investigation in the domain of civil security organizations (e.g., firefighters, emergency medical services, and police), which represent one of the most extensive and enduring inter-service collaborative systems in the world. In France, approximately two million emergency workers coordinate daily operations across a 632,792 km² national territory, collectively responding to more than 150,000 emergency calls per day, ranging from traffic and domestic accidents to fires, natural disasters, and terrorist attacks. Their coordination depends on a dense web of digital and physical tools and practices (Linot 2021; Caldeira et al. 2023), forming a complex yet high-functioning ecology that exemplifies the phenomena our study seeks to understand. Civil security thus provides a high-stakes context in which the effectiveness of collaborative tools can have life-or-death implications, making it a particularly relevant and meaningful site for CSCW inquiry.

Drawing on CSCW and practice-based computing research (Wulf et al. 2018; Ley et al. 2012; Suchman 1987), our study examines real-world cases within French civil security to describe, classify, and interpret *movements* that drive the evolution of long-term collaborative Ecologies of Artifacts (EoA). This paper addresses a fundamental problem in computer-supported cooperative work: how collaborative socio-technical systems evolve in practice, particularly in high-stakes, inter-organizational contexts. Our work provides rich empirical insight into the dynamics of change within EoA and contributes a conceptual vocabulary such as *movements*, *ripple effects*, and *zombie artifacts* for articulating them. Building on these findings, we propose the notion of movement-sensitive design, which aims at the sustainable management of collaborative
tools evolution in professional environments. Our work thus emphasises the analytical
and practical relevance of the EoA concept for understanding long-term collaboration.

We begin by reviewing prior CSCW research on civil security, followed by an exam-
ination of Ecologies of Artifacts in crisis management contexts. We then introduce our
conceptualization of movements and their relation to neighbouring concepts. Subse-
quently, we present our fieldwork in French civil security and our thematic analysis
of the material collected through 40 semi-structured interviews with 33 different pro-
fessionals, one inter-service training session, and three field observations. Our findings
reveal a dense, intertwined, and continuously evolving EoA shaped by at least eight
identified movements, accompanied by ripple effects and acceleration factors. Finally,
we discuss the adaptability of EoAs, the conditions under which movements occur,
the interplay among multi-level EoAs, the potential of a movement-sensitive design
approach, and the generalizability of our framework to other collaborative domains.

2 Related work

In this section, we motivate our choice to engage fieldwork in the civil security
domain, we introduce the concept of the Ecology of Artifacts (EoA) as a framework
for analysing civil security practices and define the notion of movement within this
context and related concepts such as workaround and infrastructure.

## 2.1 Collaboration in the Civil Security community

Civil security organizations (e.g., firefighters, emergency medical services, government officials, police) encompass all agencies responsible for protecting and assisting civilians during crises such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or large-scale accidents. We focus on this domain because it depends on highly efficient coordination and collaboration, both within organizations (e.g., coordination among firefighters during the 2019 Notre-Dame Cathedral fire) and across services (e.g., cooperation between emergency medical teams and firefighters for victim transport). Crisis management represents one of the most extensive and enduring inter-service collaborative systems in the world. As previously stated, in France, approximately 2 million emergency workers coordinate daily operations across a 632,792 km2 national territory, collectively responding to more than 150,000 emergency calls per day, ranging from traffic and domestic accidents to fires, natural disasters, and terrorist attacks.

Their coordination depends on a dense web of digital and physical tools and
practices (Linot 2021; Caldeira et al. 2023), forming a complex yet high-functioning
ecology that exemplifies the phenomena our study seeks to understand. Civil security
thus provides a high-stakes context in which the effectiveness of collaborative tools
can have life-or-death implications, making it a particularly relevant and meaningful
site for CSCW inquiry. Such collaboration occurs across varying temporal scales:
from short-term interventions lasting a few hours (e.g., the transport of a pregnant
woman) to prolonged operations spanning months or years (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic),
as well as during sudden, resource-constrained emergencies (e.g., major urban
fires). These situations demand rapid adaptation and the continuous implementation
of new practices and tools. Civil security personnel can be described as nomadic work-
ers (Rossitto et al. 2014) or mobile workers (Jarrahi et al. 2017), as they operate
directly at crisis sites and transport their tools to locations ranging from minor, local-
ized incidents (e.g., an apartment fire) to large-scale national emergencies (e.g., a civil
war). Given the constantly evolving nature of crises and associated risks, our research
examines how these professionals continuously refine their collaborative practices and
technologies.

This highly established, inter-organizational, long-term collaboration presents a compelling case for CSCW research. Understanding the mechanisms that underpin its effectiveness can enrich CSCW theory and practice by expanding empirical use-case repositories (Pipek et al. 2014) and providing actionable insights for the design of future collaborative technologies, as demonstrated by Zellner (2025). Munkvold (2023) further emphasize that CSCW approaches are well-suited to analyse and address challenges in inter-agency collaboration involving multiple stakeholders. For instance, by supporting co-located command practices, developing crisis-specific routines, and facilitating the use of geo-collaborative and multimodal communication tools. Similarly, Ley et al. (2014) highlight the urgency and uncertainty inherent to crisis management, where improvisation and real-time prototyping are major considerations to develop and validate collaborative systems (e.g., the ISAC situation assessment client and the ISOIR inter-organizational information repository).

## 2.2 Ecologies of Artifacts for civil security

CSCW literature is just beginning to examine real-life crisis management through the lens of Ecologies of Artifacts (EoA) (Formentini et al. 2025). While Lyle et al.’s (2020) meta-analysis shows no consensual definition for this concept, Jung et al. (2008) defines as “the set of physical artifacts that a person possesses, and that allows a certain level of interactivity through digital technologies”. About ten years later, Lyle et al. (2020) point to the diverse terms used in HCI research to describe user interaction across multiple artifacts that echoes the concept of EoA, defined as a set of artifacts (software, hardware, and devices) that a person (or a group of persons) uses while supporting their cooperation. We decided to go with Formentini et al.’s (2025) definition, being “a heterogeneous dynamic space rich in artifacts (i.e. software, hardware, physical objects, etc.) with an interactive aspect between them and with their environment (i.e. physical, social, cultural, etc.).”

Bødker and Klokmose (2012) use the notion of EoA to account for the evolution of the collection of artefacts a person uses. They focus on how tensions in use and the introduction of a new artifact (a smartphone as a replacement for a cellphone) reconfigure a personal EoA (discarding the digital music player because the smartphone offers this feature). Further work expands the application of the concept to account for the description and evolution of EoA at the level of collectives and organizations (Korsgaard et al. 2022) with new artifacts integrated or discarded along the evolution of a group activity at different levels (Rossitto et al. 2014; Bødker et al. 2016).

Jarrahi et al. (2017) explain how mobile workers build their EoA by drawing bridges between a personal, a collaborative and an organizational EoA. They mention multiple software (e.g. Dropbox, Skype) and hardware (e.g. wifi hotspot, laptops) in
mobile workers’ socio-technical environment, drawing attention to the need for ade-
quate support and extending access to mobile devices along with the consideration
for ubiquitous computing and customisation. This sharing of one or multiple artifacts
from one EoA to another is also pointed out in Larsen-Ledet et al.’s (2020) work, spe-
cially in the occasion of collaboration. They call the resulting intersection of individual
or organizational EoAs an *aligned ecology of artifacts*. It is assembled to achieve a
cooperative practice, for instance, the collaborative writing of a paper in their study.
Success of the aligned EoA for user support is key in keeping or recruiting an artifact
in a personal or organization EoA.

## 2.3 Definition of a movement

Our research focuses on the evolution of what we refer to as Ecologies of Artifacts (EoA). Although the topic has been touched upon in several CSCW studies, it has rarely been developed in depth. For instance, Lyle et al. acknowledge that EoAs evolve but do not explore this evolution further; Bødker and Klokmose (2012) propose a model to analyse the dynamics of EoAs within specific use cases; Bødker et al. (2016) discuss potential forms of evolution such as repurposing or discarding; and Jung et al. (2008) observe that the introduction of an interactive artifact “is an influential factor that may change overall patterns of human behaviour, transforming perceptions of reality and, consequently, expectations toward surrounding artifacts”. However, none of these works formulate a distinct concept or taxonomy that systematically characterizes the mechanisms of EoA evolution. To address this gap, we develop the idea of movement, referring to the dynamic patterns of change occurring within or between EoAs, in line with Formentini et al. (2025) (see Figure 1), with the following definition: “a movement is a deliberate change of the Ecology of Artifacts through the addition, removal and/or change of one or multiple artifacts. Movements entail consequential changes on the rest of the EoA’s uses, practices and relationships between people and artifacts”. We aim to foreground the significance of EoAs and their evolving dynamics in discussions of computer-supported collaboration. By naming and formalizing this concept, we seek to open pathways toward a movement-oriented design approach (see Discussion 5), the identification of movement categories through empirical use cases (see Findings 4.2), and further theoretical and practical developments.

We chose the term *movement* following Bødker and Klokmose's (2012) use of the word in their discussion of appropriation and evolution of use: "They defined 'appropriation' as an individual-in-context movement of complementary nature, where learning to operate develops as does the context of use." Although the authors do not elaborate further on the notion of movement, their definition suggests that it is inherently tied to an individual acting within a specific context, while also noting that an artifact's appropriation influences and is influenced by others' uses of said EoA.

Some examples of movements have already been highlighted in the literature, but
they have never been brought together under one concept. For example, Jarrahi et al.
(2017) explore artifacts exchange between a personal EoA and an organizational envi-
ronment; Bergman et al. (2007) point that *boundary objects* (Star and Griesemer 1989)
can be seen as artifacts moving from one organizational unit to another; Pipek and
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Schematic representation of a movement and its consequential rippling effects in an EoA.</figcaption></figure>

Wulf (2009) develop the concept of *appropriation support* and *infrastructuring* arguing that systems should be designed with the expectation that users will reinterpret and modify them over time, acting as a complementary lens to EoAs that considerate both personal and organizational levels when considering an ensemble of artefacts, not always yet part of an infrastructure (Formentini et al. 2025).

Rather than assuming a direct, linear transition of an artifact from one Ecology of Artifacts (EoA) to another, the concept of *movement* highlights the fluid and often ambiguous nature of change within EoAs. On one hand, a movement may involve direct changes that occur following the introduction of a new artifact (e.g., partial adoption, the need for reconfiguration or realignment) or its decommissioning (e.g., the continued presence of an obsolete tool within an organization's intranet). On the other hand, a movement can also trigger indirect changes, resulting from the adjustments required to accommodate these direct shifts (Duckert et al. 2025). This dynamic is particularly evident in the work of Bødker and Klokmose (2012), who describe "how the appropriation of an artifact influences and is influenced by the overall use of the artifact ecology that it becomes part of," as illustrated through the example of smartphone transitions. However, while their study captures these reciprocal influences, it does not provide a dedicated term to describe them. Building on this gap, we introduce the concepts of *ripple effect of movements*, defined as "unvoluntary consequences inside an EoA following a movement's apparition, generating indirect changes to relationships, practices and artifacts above the movement's directly implicated artifacts". The term *ripple effect* is inspired by Duckert et al. (2025) who defined them as changes in information infrastructures in local contexts, manifested in people, artifacts or policies with significant impact but no direct link to the work, through the example of a new LAN's introduction. If an EoA were represented as a pond, with all atoms of water being artefacts, a movement would be throwing a rock in the pond, while ripple effects would be all the little waves consequential to the rock disturbing the water. Movements and ripple effects would therefore be the obligatory stage before return to calm and homogeneity (see Figure 1). This concept will be discussed further in our results section (4.2.9).
## 2.4 Articulating movements regarding infrastructure and workarounds

Other CSCW concepts might share common features with EoA (Star and Ruhleder 1994; Rossitto et al. 2014; Monteiro et al. 2013; Aanestad et al. 2017). We especially identify the concept of *infrastructure* by Star and Ruhleder (1994), which has also been used to address the complexity of sociotechnical collaboration in crisis management (Robinson et al. 2015) for the relations between technology and the human infrastructure (Lee et al. 2006). We see the concept of EoA as a complementary lens that helps consider infrastructure that does not exist yet, echoing with the approach of *infrastructuring* by Karasti (2014). Our approach with EoA leads us to consider artifacts that can fail to be part of an infrastructure, as well as the discard of a tool from a previous state of an aligned or organisational EoA. The concept of *infrastruc-ture* (Star and Ruhleder 1994) has also been used with relevance to address complex sociotechnical collaboration in crisis management (Robinson et al. 2015), in particu-lar for accounting for the relations between technology and the human infrastructure (Lee et al. 2006). It highlights the existence of points of infrastructure, moments when infrastructures become visible through breakdowns or innovations (Pipek and Wulf 2009). We see the concept of EoA, therefore of movements to account for their evo-lution, as a complementary lens that helps consider infrastructure that does not exist yet, echoing with the shift to the approach of *infrastructuring* (Karasti 2014), or arti-facts that were thrown out of the infrastructure. EoAs allow to consider and articulate both personal and organizational levels, in particular the circulation of one or several tools from a personal EoA to a collective one. While infrastructuring focuses on the integration of systems, movements might be framed as micro-level deliberate shifts that emerge at these points and generate ripple effects across an ecology. Our approach with EoA also led us to consider artifacts that can fail to be part of an infrastructure, as well as the discard of a tool from a previous state of an aligned or organizational EoA. Both approaches can be complementary, for example, movements may encompass Pipek and Wulf's (2009) consideration of creativity and negotiation directed towards infrastructuring, along with the wider organizational consequences of said movement.

Even if the author doesn't mention EoAs by name but clearly talks about them through the mention "ecology of working relationships in the organization at a particular time", Gasser (1986) describes slips as:

> "the undersupply or qualitative misalignment of resources needed or expected for carrying out a task. Slip may occur in any resource dimensions in the work situation, such as when there is too little time, technology, budget, attention, etc., or when the quality of resources is inappropriate"

Gasser (1986) explains that "each form of slip does entail some readjustment of work to accommodate it", which he divides in 3 accommodation categories, including the *workarounds*:

> "Working around means intentionally using computing in ways for which it was not designed or avoiding its use and relying on an alternative means of accomplishing work. [...] Workarounds are typically ad-hoc strategies to solve immediate and pressing problems"
The concept of movement can complement Gasser's concept. Movement, such as the introduction of a new type of operational management system (OMS), may lead to a slip. For example, difficulties in transferring the OMS for emergency call answering to another physical site during a power outage. The movement disrupted the stillness of the functioning pond; the slip has to be adjusted to restore homeostasis. Therefore, users generate ripple effects, such as the workaround. Instead of using the new OMS during the power outage, firefighters will switch to an old OMS at the other physical site, which would be the "backup system" workaround. Even if the workaround definition is similar to a movement named realignment (4.2.7), one difference between movements and workaround, or slip, would be the point of view. The author uses the perspective of the users to define strategies and issues, while movements use the perspective of the EoA.

In summary, the highly efficient collaborative practices within civil security organizations provide a valuable case for Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) researchers such as ourselves to better understand long-term, inter-service collaboration tools. To analyse these dynamics, we apply the concept of Ecologies of Artefacts (EoA), which enables us to view collaborative tools as interconnected ensembles that continuously influence and respond to one another. Our primary interest lies in uncovering the evolutionary mechanisms through which EoAs transform and adapt over time. Building upon existing CSCW case studies on evolving collaborative environments, we extend this perspective by introducing the concept of movement, a framework designed to describe, classify, and analyze the processes that drive the evolution of complex, long-term collaborative EoAs. To explore these dynamics, we conducted qualitative research through observations, interviews, and on-site fieldwork within a French departmental civil security organization, specifically its firefighters (SDIS) and partner institutions. This empirical approach enabled us to develop multiple case studies illustrating the various forms of movement and adaptation that characterize the evolution of this high-functioning collaborative EoA.

# 3 Participants and Methods

To study movements in EoAs, we start by presenting the field of our research (1), then our fieldwork approach, inspired by CSCW and practice-based computing (Wulf et al. 2018; Ley et al. 2012; Suchman 1987), articulating observations (2), interviews with key stakeholders (3) and on-site visits (4) in a thematic analysis approach (5).

## 3.1 Research field

French civil security has been established and operational since 1975, with a mission to prevent, protect against, and anticipate crises affecting civilian populations. Our research focuses on one of France's regional civil security organizations, with particular attention to the Departmental Fire and Rescue Service (Service Départemental d'Incendie et de Secours or SDIS) and its various partners, including the gendarmerie, emergency medical services, and local government authorities. The SDIS was selected as the focal point of this study because it plays a central role in crisis management and inter-service coordination.
The study concentrates on a specific French department that maintains significant operational links with neighbouring European countries. This department demonstrates a remarkable capacity for coordination and communication, both in the short and long term, across the national territory and among a wide range of actors. Its effectiveness is evidenced by its ability to handle approximately 200,000 emergency calls per year, around 500 per day, resulting in about 74,000 interventions annually, or more than 200 per day.

Although the exact number of civil security personnel in this department is not officially documented, it is estimated to be around 5,000, serving and protecting a population of roughly 1 million residents. The civil security network in this department comprises:

* 1 SDIS, encompassing 181 fire stations capable of intervening anywhere within 20 minutes;

* 2 CODIS (Operational Fire and Rescue Coordination Centers), responsible for managing and supervising operations in collaboration with local fire stations, overseen by Zonal Operational Centers (COZ);

* 1 regional emergency medical service (SAMU/SMUR inside the CHR), which coordinates patient care and hospital transfers across 32 hospitals;

* 1 prefecture (CEMIZA) under the authority of zonal headquarters (EMIZ), overseeing the political and administrative aspects of crisis management;

* 46 gendarmerie brigades and 14 police stations, tasked with ensuring public safety and maintaining order;

* 1 regional health agency (ARS), responsible for implementing and managing public health policies

This department represents an exemplary case of effective inter-service collaboration, which motivated our decision to study it as a model for understanding the evolving dynamics of collaborative Ecologies of Artifacts (EoA).

To build our partnership, we re-established contact with a member of the relevant SDIS department with whom our laboratory had previously worked, ensuring continuity and mutual trust between the research team and the participating institutions. This person then enabled us to get in touch with other members and, therefore, allowed our research to proceed. Informed consent has been obtained from all participants.

## 3.2 Observations

Field observations (see Figure 1) allow us to grasp the situated uses and practices. That's why we began our process by attending half a day (4 hours) of an inter-service training session in the spring of 2024, which involved more than 350 representatives from the SDIS, emergency medical services, police, armed services, headquarters, and various international observers. The aim of these mock crisis is for professionals to train in close-to-real situations. We were two passive observers, asking questions when we were directly addressed, taking manual notes, and drawing diagrams. We focused on observing the collaborative practices at play, the various collaborative digital tools, the equipment and the actual means of communication in the field.
<table><caption>**Table 1** Observation table. This table indicates what observations have been done and for how long.</caption><thead><tr><td>Field of observation</td><td>Description</td><td>Duration of visit</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Interservice NRBCE training</td><td>Including more than 350 representatives from civil security, mock crisis mimicking a toxic gaz terrorist attack for training, Included the visit of many nomad crisis cell (PC, tents, etc.).</td><td>4 hours</td></tr><tr><td>Crisis unit at the Gen-darmerie station (COZ)</td><td>Multiple room acting as meeting rooms</td><td>3 hours</td></tr><tr><td>Crisis unit (CODIS)</td><td>Multiple room acting as crisis cell, containing emergency call responders, meeting rooms, back up spaces, etc.</td><td>3 hours</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3.3 Interviews

Between March 2024 and October 2025, we conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with 33 active professionals from the previously presented French civil security departmental population. We interviewed professionals working in fire stations, territorial administrations, zonal inter-service Table 2). Each interview lasted between 60 and 90 minutes and was conducted via videoconferencing, phone, or face-to-face at their workplace. The interviews were conducted based on pre-written interview guides with semi-directed questions (e.g. In your daily life, to what extent are you in contact with partner services ?; Could you tell me how and why you started using this tool ?), based on exploratory principles (e.g. open-ended questions) and explicitation methods as Vermersch (1996) explains:

> "when the subject speaks of a past situation, he is present in thought to the experience of that situation. As a result, he speaks of it as a singular situation, restores the experiences attached to this situation and remains connected to the concrete nature of his experience" (p.57)

The questions focused mainly on civil security organizations, digital tools and collaborative practices, both during and since the COVID period. All participants agreed to be recorded. Transcriptions were made with Whisper on the Humanum research platform<fnref n="1" />.

## 3.4 On-site visits

We also visited three facilities dedicated to crisis management (see Table 1). We visited the crisis rooms of operational control spaces for regional fire stations, the emergency spaces in a fire station and an operational command centre for the regional

<footnote n="1">¹https://www.huma-num.fr/</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 2** List of all interviewee's ID, department, and number of exchanges. The professionals jobs are voluntarily kept quiet for anonymisation purposes. Interview table. It is usual for all civil security members to either change frequently their jobs and/or to work in multiple services at the same time.</caption><thead><tr><td>ID</td><td>Nb of exchanges</td><td>Department</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SDISSANTE1</td><td>2</td><td>Fire station (SDIS) and medical-social care facility</td></tr><tr><td>SDIS1</td><td>1</td><td>Fire station (SDIS)</td></tr><tr><td>SDIS2</td><td>1</td><td>Fire station (SDIS)</td></tr><tr><td>SDIS3</td><td>3</td><td>Fire station (SDIS)</td></tr><tr><td>SDIS4</td><td>1</td><td>Fire station (SDIS)</td></tr><tr><td>SDIS5</td><td>1</td><td>Fire station (SDIS)</td></tr><tr><td>SDIS6</td><td>1</td><td>Fire station (SDIS)</td></tr><tr><td>SDIS7</td><td>1</td><td>Fire station (SDIS)</td></tr><tr><td>SDIS8</td><td>1</td><td>Fire station (SDIS)</td></tr><tr><td>SDIS9</td><td>1</td><td>Fire station (SDIS)</td></tr><tr><td>SDIS10</td><td>1</td><td>Fire station (SDIS)</td></tr><tr><td>SDISPREF1</td><td>2</td><td>Fire station (SDIS) and Territorial administration (prefecture)</td></tr><tr><td>SDISEMIZ1</td><td>1</td><td>Zonal inter-service headquarters (EMIZ) and Fire station (SDIS)</td></tr><tr><td>SDISEMIZ2</td><td>2</td><td>Fire station (SDIS) then Zonal inter-service headquarters (EMIZ)</td></tr><tr><td>SDISEMIZ3</td><td>1</td><td>Fire station (SDIS) then Zonal inter-service headquarters (EMIZ)</td></tr><tr><td>SDISEMIZ4</td><td>2</td><td>Fire station (SDIS) then Zonal inter-service headquarters (EMIZ)</td></tr><tr><td>SDISEMIZ5</td><td>2</td><td>Fire station (SDIS) then Zonal inter-service headquarters (EMIZ)</td></tr><tr><td>CEMIZA1</td><td>1</td><td>Zonal inter-service headquarters (EMIZ)</td></tr><tr><td>CEMIZA2</td><td>1</td><td>Zonal inter-service headquarters (EMIZ)</td></tr><tr><td>EMIZ1</td><td>2</td><td>Zonal inter-service headquarters (EMIZ)</td></tr><tr><td>ARS1</td><td>1</td><td>Regional health department (ARS)</td></tr><tr><td>SDISCODIS1</td><td>1</td><td>Fire station (SDIS) and Operational control centre for fire station (CODIS)</td></tr><tr><td>COZ1</td><td>1</td><td>Zone operational control centre (COZ)</td></tr><tr><td>CODIS1</td><td>1</td><td>departmental fire and rescue operations center (CODIS)</td></tr><tr><td>CODIS2</td><td>1</td><td>departmental fire and rescue operations center (CODIS)</td></tr><tr><td>GEND1</td><td>1</td><td>Gendarmerie</td></tr><tr><td>GEND2</td><td>1</td><td>Gendarmerie</td></tr><tr><td>GEND3</td><td>1</td><td>Gendarmerie</td></tr><tr><td>ASSO1</td><td>1</td><td>Firefighter association</td></tr><tr><td>CHR1</td><td>1</td><td>Hospital (CHR)</td></tr><tr><td>SDISCHR1</td><td>1</td><td>firefighter's nusery</td></tr><tr><td>MIN1</td><td>1</td><td>Ministerial board</td></tr><tr><td>EXT1</td><td>1</td><td>Outside contractor</td></tr></tbody></table>
gendarmerie. These observations, in addition to interviews conducted at the profes-
sionals' workplaces, lasted about 1 hour each. The interviewers guided us through the
different spaces, introduced us to other professionals, described the environment, and
answered our questions. We were never allowed to take pictures and/or share them,
but we were allowed to use published pictures coming from official civil security social
media. Feedbacks take the form of manual notes and transcripts.

3.5 Thematic analysis

We conducted a thematic analysis of our interview transcripts and field notes (Braun and Clarke 2021). We have initially organized the transcripts by affiliation (e.g., gendarmerie, health services, firefighters), positions and roles of the interviewee (e.g., volunteer, management, nurse) and the period mentioned in the transcript (e.g., COVID or post-COVID). All the data has been stored in a secure web-based document-sharing space. We approached our analysis by adopting a practices-based computing studies lens (Wulf et al. 2018; Ley et al. 2012). We used a manual method, copying and pasting the relevant citations or written notes into theme-named files. In a first phase, we highlighted the tools mentioned by our interviewees (e.g., operational management system, HR, portals) and their practices (e.g., answering emergency calls, generating reports). We conducted three rounds of interviews, followed by three iterative rounds of theme review and refinement with the co-authors. Our theme identification was partly driven by our research questions surrounding the civil security population and changes in their EoAs (e.g. organisational partnerships between services, COVID-19 related evolutions of tools), and partly driven by empirical findings and emergent use-cases (e.g. gendarme decommissioning, IT department influence, navigating multiple redundant tools). We ended up with three high-level themes: major crisis as a movement accelerator, collaborative relations and organisation, and movements in EoA.

Categories of movements emerged within the third high-level theme as we identi-
fied recurrent evolutionary pathways for IT tools to change. We organized the cases in
large categories (e.g., introduction, decommission) that we progressively specified in a
first set of movements. After discussing collectively during a movement-focused data
session, we redefined the movement's names, actors and distinctions as we present them
here and identified the ripple effects as consequential to movements. All researchers
worked collaboratively to identify themes, discuss and share them during weekly
discussions throughout the study period.

4 Findings

Our findings show that movements actively shape French civil security's Ecology of Artifacts (EoA), serving as core elements of its evolution in addition to its first glance characteristics: dense (4.1.1), misunderstood (4.1.2), redundant (4.1.3) and interconnected (4.1.4). We also identify the factors that accelerate these movements and the ripple effects they generate throughout the ecology: personal-to-organizational (4.2.1), outside-introduction (4.2.2), top-down (4.2.3), bottom-up (4.2.4), horizontal (4.2.5),
user-motivated suppression (4.2.6), realignment (4.2.7), replacement (4.2.8), rippling effects (4.2.9) and movement accelerating factors (4.2.9).

# 4.1 Characteristics of French civil security's EoA

As previously stated, French civil security is a great collaborative ensemble of the population, managing coordination and communication throughout the whole country, including hundreds of people on time-limited interventions. Therefore, our work explores their EoAs characteristics, along with their advantages and inconveniences from the user's point of view. Our thematic analysis and the first part of our results highlight four aspects of French civil security's EoA: density, misunderstanding, redundancy and interconnection.

## 4.1.1 Dense

One of the most striking characteristics of civil security Ecology of Artefacts (EoA) is their density. From the transcripts of the firefighters we interviewed, we identified 85 distinct digital tools. One head of gendarme forces we met told us that they have approximately 300 digital applications, active or under development. Here are some examples for the firefighters:

* Human resources tools are used to manage the different aspects of firefighters' everyday life, ensuring they receive appropriate support in their professional work. (e.g. Agendis, Antibia, Escort, Medisap, GEEF);

> "A work time management software called Agendis [...] Medisap is a software that allows you to manage medical visits [...] for training, we have the Geef software" SDISEMIZ4

* Operational management systems are used to manage on-site operations in real time, for example, to track the number of deployed professionals and trucks, available ambulances, etc. (e.g. ORSEC-SYNERGI, SYNAPSE, Artémis);

> "Crimson remains independent software, enabling crisis management [...] Nexsis will replace Artémis in general, but at the same time will simplify entry into the SDIS [...] We have three long-standing SEO developers with a call intake" CODIS1

* Mapping tools are used to manage on-site operation in real time during a crisis, visually representing the overall situation, such as displaying the spread of a fire or identifying the locations of the nearest water sources, etc. (e.g. Geocarto, IDIC-SI, Tacmap, Crimson tactic);

> "Cartography is nothing more than Google Maps or similar [...] we're looking at a few months for IDIC-SI [...] TACMAP is really crisis management [...] after each hierarchical level also has its own mapping resources [...] Gobserve and Geodispo [...] this allows us to see exactly where the soldiers are." GEND1

* Communication channels, official or not, are used for information sharing, both during crisis interventions and for everyday communication with colleagues (e.g. Rocketchat, WhatsApp, texts, Viapel, Bluemind, Zimbra, MAARCH courrier);

> "Often it will be by text message, [...] a photo taken with Neogende [...] it could be unconventional tools such as WhatsApp [...] we have alternative networks, the Tchap app" GEND1
* Videoconferencing tools are primarily used to attend meetings without the need for travel and/or to mitigate health risks during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. WebConfCommu, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, FaceTime, Lifesize, Zoom);

"Intra SDIS uses Lifesize [...] Teams had to use it" SDIS10 "We were able to benefit from Zoom licenses at the beginning" ARS1

* Platforms are used to store and/or share documents with different individuals and/or during remote work, for example, as previously stated (e.g. a protected internal Cloud, an internal NAS, Alfresco, RESANA, NextCloud);

"Alfresco [...] is a database [...] the cloud still has limited storage capacity [...] mandatory communications on Résana [...] only the sub-department [of my speciality] has access to my NAS" SDISEMIZ2

All these artifacts are shared at different levels: within fire stations (e.g. AGENDIS for daily operational organization of firefighters' schedules), between fire departments (e.g. switching to the neighbour's region server in the event of intranet failure), with other services such as the police (e.g. ORSEC-SYNERGI for operational crisis management on a regional or national level), and so on.

Most direct users can explain which tool to use, for what purpose, with whom to share information, and under what circumstances. For example, the communication channels have specific uses, depending on the emergency, traceability, interlocutors, etc.

### 4.1.2 Misunderstood

While a dense yet functioning EoA is not inherently problematic, it often gives rise to misunderstandings and unfamiliarity with available tools, as illustrated in the following quote from an operational firefighter:

"Because when you use too much software, you get lost in the software. When there's too much software, you get lost." SDIS6

For some professionals, it creates unfamiliarity with the available tools, a lack of knowledge about what they actually do, as shown in this quote by a policy maker for gendarme's digital collaborative tools:

"Nobody knows the tools they have at their disposal. So they want to develop new tools, but they don't know 10 percent of the tools and the possibility of what's available to them natively." GEND3

It also hints that adding more tools to this dense EoA might not be the solution as more tools do not lead to more uses but to more unused tools stacking and more overload, as summarized by this firefighter manager :

"Just because we're presenting lots of tools doesn't mean we're going to use them all." SDIS3
### 4.1.3 Redundant

When examining the details of civil security's Ecologies of Artifacts (EoA), another prominent characteristic emerges: the redundancy of many tools. Firefighters do not limit their EoA to a single tool per function (e.g., one management system), but rather operate with overlapping tools (e.g., nine operational engagement systems). In the case of operational management software, the subtleties of use are often implicitly defined. Some systems are restricted to small-scale daily interventions, while others are dedicated to major crises. Certain tools are limited to one or two specific services, whereas others are primarily intended for information sharing with ministerial decision-makers.

For instance, to store and share files, the professionals mentioned several tools such as ALFRESCO, NEXTCLOUD, RESANA, and an internal NETWORK ATTACHED STORAGE (NAS). These tools are used while staying at the office to share documents and co-write reports. Professionals mention that online storage on cloud solutions allows access for remote work. They switch from one tool to another according to several criteria (e.g. sharing capacity, department belonging, size, activity), but they only use one or two of these artifacts on a daily basis, highlighting the presence of multiple redundant artifacts for communication within their EoA.

> "We use Nextcloud [...] we are part of a working group [...] we use Résana [...] historically, the first document database we had was NAS [...] NAS was only accessible via the intranet. The cloud allowed us to access it from outside the network." SDISEMIZ4

While redundancy contributes to the overall density of the EoA and can increase the risk of misunderstanding or confusion, it also provides valuable operational resilience. In the event of a system failure, such as a confidentiality breach in What'sApp or a technical malfunction in Rocketchat, firefighters can still rely on alternative channels such as text messages or Viappel. Moreover, in the event of a widespread internet outage, they can revert to traditional communication methods, including radios and pagers. Therefore, professionals generally do not perceive redundancy as a problem, but rather as a necessary safeguard, something to rely on "just in case."

### 4.1.4 Interconnected

A key support feature for navigating civil security tools lies in their interconnection capacities. Civil security systems are only partially interconnected across services, enabling some software applications to share information and thereby avoid the time lost to re-entering identical data. For example, the logging feature of the firefighter's operational management system, ARTÉMIS, and the emergency service's system, EXOS, are interconnected. One entry in either of those tools can be seen in the other one, as explained by a healthcare professional working with firefighters:

> "If the [emergency services] sends us a file, we receive it on our software. [...] with [the firefighters], it's Artémis. And for the [emergency services], it's called Exos." SDISEMIZ2
But interconnection is not a rule, and combined with redundancy issues, it leads to confusing uses, for example, with the firefighter's internal availabilities management systems ARTÉMIS and AGENDIS. As shown in the following quote by a fire station chief and health director, both those software can register firefighters' available time slots, but AGENDIS integrates at midnight, and erases the data put in ARTÉMIS before, leading to misunderstandings and wrongly updated calendars:

> "When Agendis integrates the data into Artemis, the operational management software, every night at midnight, it overwrites the data entered. This means [...] it would overwrite the presence of firefighters outside on-call time [...] I am a bit reluctant to use it, because I'm afraid we'll lose availability along the way." SDISSANTE1

Professionals consistently identify poor interconnection as one of the most significant digital challenges. Firefighter administrative staff report that specific contract management tools display different document versions to different signatories, leading to discrepancies and misunderstandings among senior decision-makers and delaying critical authorizations. Similarly, so-called inter-service software may be avoided by specific departments, forcing others to compensate through alternative communication channels. A notable example is the lack of network interoperability between police and firefighter systems, which prevents direct information sharing between the two services.

Nevertheless, some professionals emphasize the importance of maintaining distinct operational spaces, both to preserve each service's domain of expertise and to ensure "business consistency" and "professional identity". This suggests that interconnection design should not aim for complete homogenization, but rather for carefully structured interoperability that respects service-specific needs. Ultimately, thoughtful interconnection design emerges as a key area for improvement to better align with the operational realities of civil security.

In summary, at first glance, civil security's high-functioning EoA is dense, misunderstood, redundant, and interconnected. But it is also ever-changing, as we will show in the following section.

## 4.2 Movements inside civil security's EoA

The central result of our analysis is the identification of movements that transform the Ecologies of Artifacts (EoAs) (see Section 2.3: Definition of a Movement). First, five movements related to the introduction of a new artifact in the organization's EoA:

* Personal-to-organizational, when the new artifact comes from a personal EoA (4.2.1);

* Outside-introduction, when the new artifact comes from an external actor (4.2.2);

* Top-down introduction, when the new artifact comes from a higher form of authoritarian command part of the organization (4.2.3);

* Bottom-up introduction, when the new artifact comes initially from a local user (4.2.4);
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2 Summary figure of all identified movements</figcaption></figure>

* Horizontal introduction, when the new artifact is consensually shared with no sense of status (4.2.5);

* Replacement, when an artifact is pushed aside to make space for a new one (4.2.8);

Second, a movement related to the decommissioning of an artifact user-motivated suppression of artifacts, when an artifact is abandoned by the users themselves (4.2.6).

Third, a movement related to the repurposing or recombining artifacts from the EoA to a new use: the realigning EoA movement, when one or multiple artifacts from the EoA are repurposed (4.2.7).

Fourth, two sets of movements impacting phenomena:

* Ripple effects of movements examples (4.2.9);

* Accelerating events: major crisis as movements punctual accelerators (4.2.9);

We present one example per movement, supported by one set of quotes, but each movement came up in different interviews through various use cases. We detail each of those in the following section, using real-life use cases involving French civil security and one or multiple collaborative digital artefacts (see Figure 2 and Table 3). They were selected among all the discovered use cases because they were the most obvious and/or most emblematic.

## 4.2.1 From personal-to-professional EoA's

The WHATSAPP case<fnref n="1" />

<footnote n="1">¹https://www.whatsapp.com/</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 3** Summary table containing all identified movements listing the movement type, its definition, the level of EoA involved, the use-case example, some of the implicated artifacts (EoA partial composition), some of the implicated actors and some possible ripple effects. Those elements are built from the observations and interviews, but other are interpretative. Therefore, this table should not be seen as a stable and definitive, but more as a draft.</caption><thead><tr><th>Movement type</th><th>Definition</th><th>Level of EoA</th><th>Use-case example</th><th>EoA partial composition</th><th>Partial actors of the EoA</th><th>Possible ripple effects</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>personal-to-professional</td><td>when an artifact initially used in someone's personal EoA gets shared to their professional EoA</td><td>personal, group, organizational</td><td>whatsapp</td><td>whatsapp, Rocketchat, smartphones</td><td>SDISEMIZ5, SDISEMIZ2, many teams of civil security</td><td>user-motivated suppression ; zombie artifacts creation ; bottom-up demands; top-down processes; horizontal sharing</td></tr><tr><td>outside-introduction</td><td>when the new artifact is imposed by an outside actor, not suffering most consequences to directly impacted actors</td><td>group, organizational</td><td>Agendis</td><td>Agendis, NEXSIS, computers</td><td>external actors, civil security workers, IT integration team such as SDISEMIZ4</td><td>zombie artifacts creation ; top-down processes ; replacing movement ; realignment</td></tr><tr><td>top-down introduction</td><td>the use of a new artifact is imposed on users by a hierarchically superior authority within the same Environment of Action (EoA)—as opposed to the outside-in movement, where the introduction originates externally</td><td>organizational</td><td>Réseau Radio du Futur (RFF)</td><td>RFF, Antares, radios, smartphones</td><td>Hierarchical managing team such as ACMOSS, civil security actors nationwide, communication plan builders, CODIS2, GEND3</td><td>replacing movement ; outside-introduction possibility ; zombie artifact creation ; suppression of old artefact ; realignment</td></tr><tr><td>bottom-up introduction</td><td>the initiative to introduce a new artifact stems from a local, non-authoritarian worker, such as a professional operating outside a command-and-control structure</td><td>organizational, group</td><td>Kdelib</td><td>Kdelib, physical papers and pens, computers</td><td>SDIS5's as the project initiator, the other users such as SDISEMIZ2, the Kdelib external engineers, directors</td><td>top-down processes ; realignment ; zombie artifacts creation ; replacement processes</td></tr><tr><td>horizontal introduction</td><td>when an artifact is shared from one group to another without any sense of hieratical status, without obligation of use</td><td>personal, group</td><td>Klaxoon</td><td>Klaxoon, Word, mails, computers</td><td>users from different teams such as SDIS7 or SDISEMIZ2, the headquarters, the Klaxoon external team, etc.</td><td>realignment ; top-down processes ; bottom-up process ; outside-introduction ; personal-to-professional sharing</td></tr><tr><td>user-motivated suppression of artifacts</td><td>the abandon, the decommissioning, the suppression of adopted artifacts</td><td>personal, group</td><td>Kanban Generic Component</td><td>Kanban Generic Component, other similar unnamed tool, computers</td><td>deputy director, users such as SDIS3, SDISEMIZ2 and EMIZ1, their managers, IT team developing Kanban Generic Component in the intranet</td><td>realignment ; zombie artifact creation ; replacement processes ; all types of introduction prior</td></tr><tr><td>realigning</td><td>when one or multiple already adopted artifacts are being repurposed or recombined to fill new needs</td><td>personal</td><td>COVID-19 intervention screening case</td><td>GLPI tickets, Excels spread-sheets, Google drive, email, computers, intervention truck, tickets</td><td>emergency services, fire station manager such as SDISEMIZ4, users familiar with those tools such as EMIZ1, fire station workers, firemen intervening, patients</td><td>any type of introduction or artifact suppression ; replacing</td></tr><tr><td>replacement</td><td>when one artifact is being introduced while another is being suppressed as the combination of multiple movements such as suppression and outside-introduction movements</td><td>group, organizational</td><td>Artémis / Smartémis</td><td>Artémis / Smartémis, Gipsis, NEXSIS, computers, smartphones, tablets, DB2000</td><td>ATG team, users such as GEND1 and SDIS1, IT developing team</td><td>realignment ; zombie artifact creation ; any type of introduction or suppression</td></tr></tbody></table>
The personal-to-professional movement happens when an artifact initially used in someone's personal EoA gets shared to their professional EoA, mixing personal-level EoA and professional group-level EoA. We observed this movement through the use case of WHATSAPP, an instant communication application, widely used for unofficial and instantaneous exchanges of information, for example, as shown by the following quote by a firefighter's unit chief:

> "We used sandbag WhatsApp groups to inform all our divers that we were in a flooding phase and that we needed personnel. As a result, we managed to repatriate a large number of people" SDISEMIZ5

However, the use of WHATSAPP is redundant with ROCKET.CHAT, the official instant messaging software, which ensures the confidentiality of exchanges. Professionals find themselves juggling, depending on the information to be shared and the recipient:

> "With RocketChat, everything is recorded and secure. It's really internal [...] It's not about telling each other how we spent our days. [...] For RocketChat, you have to be connected to your computer. So already, at night, it doesn't work. [Volunteers are] not connected to their computer every day." SDISEMIZ2

Therefore, the familiar WHATSAPP has spread widely across teams and centres through this informal, personal-to-professional movement, despite official recommendations.

This phenomenon has been described in other populations (Rossitto et al. 2014) and mobile workers in Jarrahi et al.'s (2017) work, when transitions from personal artifact ecologies into the organizational space become institutionalized over time.

In summary, the personal-to-professional movement happens when a new artifact initially used in a personal EoA is shared with the professional EoA following a spontaneous need. It allows them to rely on familiar tools rather than learning new ones, but it can push other official tools into oblivion.

### 4.2.2 Outside-introduction

The AGENDIS<fnref n="3" /> case

EoAs can evolve through an outside-introduction movement, observed when the new artifact comes from an external actor, not suffering the consequences of said evolution of EoA. We observe this through the case of the firefighter's national board, which mandates the use of AGENDIS, a private software package for scheduling and operational planning. Firefighters were obliged to adopt this new tool, with support from a dedicated IT team sent by the board. We were taken through this process by a member of this IT team, explaining why the quotes are mostly theirs. They describe 6 months of a) a local test and adaptation phase:

<footnote n="3">³https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=fr.astillia.AgendisMobile&hl=fr&pli=1</footnote>
"There was a big part of assimilating the existing software, configuring it and taking into account the latest regulations within the [firefighters] in the context of human resources." SDISEMIZ4

They also describe a b) deployment phase, itself divided into: 1) a training phase :

"That involved identifying who was going to use the software, getting the supervisor, the centre manager generally, into the loop, getting them to come to headquarters, showing them, [...] explain to them that the new software is good" SDISEMIZ4

and 2) a technical support phase :

"There are always errors, and these have enabled us either to readjust the configuration of the software or to realise that there were errors in the working time regulations." SDISEMIZ4

But again, this order of use goes against already deployed artifacts, as AGENDIS is redundant with realigned artifacts like EXCEL SPREADSHEETS spontaneously used by the users to fix timetable coordination issues. This put the IT team in a position of command, imposing the tool's replacement on the users in spite of the local organization, as shown in the following quote by the former IT department member:

"When you don't have a tool that had been proposed by headquarters [...] They create their own tool. [...] [We went there to tell] them "you were using your Excel sheet which was very good, from tomorrow, you'll have to use this" " SDISEMIZ4

Outside-introduction movements are mentioned in the case of global crisis like
COVID-19 (e.g. wear masks all the time) and/or during extensive tool replacements
(e.g. national software management tool for all civil security NEXSIS).

In summary, the outside-introduction movement refers to changes in one's EoA initiated by an actor external to it, potentially in contradiction with local initiatives. It employs gradual formal processes and involves multiple actors.

4.2.3 Top-down introduction

The RÉSEAU RADIO DU FUTUR (RRF)<fnref n="8" /> case

The top-down movement refers to situations in which the use of a new artifact is imposed on users by a hierarchically superior authority within the same EoA, as opposed to the outside-in movement 4.2.2, where the introduction originates externally. This type of movement thus presupposes hierarchical relationships within the organisational ecology. We observed this dynamic in the case study of the RÉSEAU RADIO DU FUTUR (RRF), an emerging radio communication system designed for

<footnote n="8">⁸https://www.acmoss.fr/</footnote>
smartphones and operating via France's mainstream radio networks. As a member of the police IT deployment board explained:

> "It will rely on consumer operators. [...] There will be a core network that is a dedicated [...] And then they also have messaging, they have the application side. [...] RRF will provide the interoperability gateway [...] We will be interoperable with the fire department" GEND3

The development and deployment of this tool are mandated by national civil secu-
rity authorities, making its adoption compulsory and progressive across services, as
described by a crisis cell manager:

> "It is a national communications sharing plan that will ultimately enable all emergency, safety, and risk management services to communicate via mobile phone operators. [...] The rollout will take place over several years. Some fire departments are already using it and are currently testing it. [...] It is a national organization called the Mobile and Operational Communications Agency for Security and Emergency Services (ACMOSS), which is a national agency administered by the Directorate-General for Civil Security, which is deploying this system nationwide." CODIS2

This movement is frequent among civil security's EoA, as many examples were mentioned across the interviews, as if users were commonly asked to change their tools following hierarchical orders.

In summary, a top-down movement occurs when hierarchically superior individuals enforce the adoption of an artifact upon their teams at the local level. Such movements are frequently mentioned in relation to the implementation of national or departmental directives, for instance, in initiatives to enhance cybersecurity.

4.2.4 Bottom-up introduction

The KDELIB<fnref n="2" /> case

The initiative to introduce a new artifact can stem from a local, non-authoritarian
worker, such as a professional operating outside a command-and-control structure.
This bottom-up movement is evident in the KDELIB software use case, which the SDIS
utilises to draft, track, and digitally sign administrative documents and procedures
(e.g., budget management, administrative meetings). For instance, Kdelib is used to
generate reports for directors' signatures or to track order versions. In 2021, this tool
appeared in the firefighters' EoA following the initiative of an operational coordination
manager to answer their need for a document version management tool, as shown in
the following quote by the person responsible for this initiative:

> "There were errors in the version because it didn't fit. [...] I did some prospecting and came across a tool that was, in fact, my choice, which is Kdelib." SDIS5

<footnote n="2">²https://dockdelib.qualigraf.fr/Accueil.html</footnote>
This operational worker has put significant effort into convincing their superiors to adopt this new tool. This manager described a gradual process of change: 1) prospect solutions, 2) have the tool validated by their managers, 3) a) train future users to its use, and b) handle the after-sales negotiations. This process enabled the tool to be introduced to the rest of the SDIS and to various partners (e.g., administration, health services, management) who use it daily.

Still, in practice, KDELIB has to be combined with other artifacts, such as emails and/or phone calls, as communication facilitates the process and clears up potential issues, as explained by one of the civil security professionals using it:

> "The supervisor doesn't necessarily receive the email. [...] then [I] push it to the administrative coordination department [...] he'll call me and say, 'I've made some corrections' [...] so I'll get my document back" SDISEMIZ2

To summarise, the bottom-up movement testifies that new tools can come from users' direct initiative, showing a different motivation for EoA changes. This movement initiates from the users themselves but takes a formal turn when being shared to the rest of the services.

### 4.2.5 Horizontal introduction

#### Klaxoon<fnref n="5" /> case

The horizontal movement occurs when an artifact is shared from one group to another without any sense of hieratical status, without obligation of use. This type of movement may involve the idea of *boundary objects* (Star and Griesemer 1989), as artifacts move across organizational units, carrying partially shared meanings and functions (Bergman et al. 2007).

The horizontal movement is observed in small groups such as a team working together on an everyday basis. The use-case of KLAXOON, a collaborative software for shared project management containing white boards, presentation creators, video-conference tools etc. illustrates this movement as KLAXOON was introduced to an executive firefighter, who gave us this quote, and other same-levelled executives by a colleague:

> "I must have talked to someone who told me about Klaxoon. We tested Klaxoon and compared to what we want, it's not bad. [...] There are certainly other things that work well, but in terms of collaboration, we went for Klaxoon." SDIS7

As evidenced by the verbal marks of uncertainty and even oblivion in this quotation, this intra-team sharing movement is informal, diffuse, not clear or precise in time. Other teams have testified that they don't use KLAXOON for example. But when used, again, it's associated to other artifacts, as a frequent Klaxoon's user explains:

<footnote n="5">⁵https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sis.smartemis&hl=fr&pli=1</footnote>
"Generally, it's a classic Word document [...] We produced a 40-page report [...] we summarized the main ideas in a concise, visually appealing way [...] we gave them access to Klaxoon, our page, so that the people at headquarters could go there whenever they wanted to see what we were doing, follow our work, etc." SDISEMIZ2

To sum up, the horizontal movement showcases how multiple EoAs can share artifacts on very local restricted groups inside the EoA, without any sense of hierarchical obligations. Considering our interest in inter-service long-term collaboration, it seems like horizontal introduction might be the instinctive way to go for emergencies.

### 4.2.6 User-motivated suppression of artifacts

#### Kanban Generic Component case

Along with the introduction of new artifacts goes the abandonment, the decommissioning, the suppression of adopted artifacts. Considering the amount of existing artifacts, decommission seems like a necessary contradictory movement.

Suppression can be originated by the users, as done in the case of Kanban Generic Component, a web-based tool for to-do list creation previously described in CSCW by Schmidt (2018) as a *coordinative artifact* to manage interdependencies in large EoAs, that was introduced to a team of firefighters by their direct manager as the tool for long-term task management, as shown by a professional part of the team:

"Kanban [...] It was the management, in fact, the chief of staff who used it [...] would note down on Kanban objectives. [...] [They] wanted us to make it our own in the departments, so we played around with it a bit." SDISEMIZ2

Kanban got abandoned by the team following the manager's departure, as shown in this quote by a firefighter, a former member of the team:

"But it lasted until the deputy director [...] left. And as soon as he left, it all fell apart. [...] The deputy director left, he had an appetite for this tool, but we gave up on Kanban. [...] And in fact, as they say, it was superfluous, it was useless. Kanban is a project management tool, not a tool for managing daily tasks." SDIS3

Suppression seemed to be related to one supervisor's departure, leading to a conscious voluntary suppression of use. The interview showed that they already had other tools before this manager's arrival, and that they returned to what they knew once the obligation to use them disappeared. The users discreetly stopped using said artifact. But that team's suppression of Kanban did not impact other teams, changing their own local team's EoA but not the global SDIS's EoA, making Kanban a *zombie artifact* for their EoA, as it's still available, but it's not actually used by this team.

Talking about suppression, workers mention a global overload of technologies drowning them, as explained by a member of the headquarters command:
"They've given us so many tools that, on the one hand, all the staff don't know about them [...] We'd end up with 30 or 40 pieces of software, and in the end, nobody was using them. [...] we're really going back to the essentials and to those that are used by everyone." EMIZ1

It hints to a need for more suppression movements to balance introductory move-
ments, in an effort to find homeostasis in the EoA, to "clean" the zombie artifacts and
make the available tools more straightforward, leading to more time and mental space
for existing artifacts. But it also assumes the existence of other types of suppression
movements at the group level, which are not explored in this article.

To summarize, suppression movements appear when a tool stops being used. We presented a use-case where an artifact is consciously abandoned by a team but is still used by other actors, introducing the concept of *zombie artifact*. It might not be the only existing suppression movement.

4.2.7 Realigning an artifact

The COVID-19 intervention screening case

The realignment movement happens when one or multiple already adopted artifacts
are being repurposed or recombined to fill new needs. Realignment shares common
ground with the concept of *aligned EoA* (Larsen-Ledet et al. 2020) and the use-case of
Excel spreadsheet described by Nardi (1996), showing internal movements inside the
EoA, oriented by the practice needs and circumstantial demands.

We illustrate this through the COVID-19 intervention screening use case, where GLPI TICKETS, EXCEL SPREADSHEETS shared via GOOGLE DRIVE and emails were recombined and repurposed to meet new, temporary needs. The fire stations had to keep a list of all contacts with confirmed victims. In the absence of a dedicated tool, the professionals combined EXCEL SPREADSHEETS and GLPI TICKETS in order to report suspected COVID-19's cases, even though the tickets were dedicated to sending firefighters on intervention, as explained by the fire station manager:

"The agent who had left because of a suspicion, or who had confirmed it afterwards, would fill a GLPI ticket. [...] Once a week, my deputy and I would bring out all the interventions where there was a suspicion or respiratory distress. [...] After a month, they would ask us to send the Excel table [to emergency services]" SDISEMIZ4

In line with the personal-to-professional (4.2.1) movement, realignment relies on
familiarity to fill urgent needs. Firefighters also mention that choosing a tool they
know instead of learning how to use a new one is the preferred way, as explained by
a regional director:

"We came to the conclusion, for example, with project management tools. I am responsible for monitoring a number of projects, so they provided me with a whole range of tools [...] in the end we're back to basic tools [like] Excel spreadsheets." EMIZ1
Realignment differs from previous movements as it doesn't imply a new tool's intro-
duction or another's suppression, which we could see as an external-originated change.
Realignment expresses more of a resilient approach, where the change is internal, and
the consequences may be more about reorganization than alternative composition.

To summarize, the realignment movement is observed in the case of urgent needs and implies already adopted artifacts from the EoA by repurposing them. More than showing that familiar tools are preferred by the users, it shows another aspect of EoA's flexibility of use and composition, while proving that artifacts might be combined, using their interconnectivity to their fullest.

4.2.8 Replacing artifacts

ARTÉMIS/SMARTÉMIS<fnref n="6" /> case

The replacement movement happens when one artifact is being introduced while another is being suppressed as the combination of multiple movements such as suppression (4.2.6) and outside-introduction movements (4.2.2). For example, day-to-day operational management systems (SGO) are replaced by up-to-date systems every 10 years. SGOs are handled by emergency service operators, who link urgency calls to crisis locations, situation summaries, and intervention orders. Before 2010, the firefighters used GIPSIS (PC version only), then switched to ARTÉMIS (PC version) and SMARTEMIS (smartphone version). They are still in use today. In 2030, they plan to switch to NEXSIS, a national SGO usable on computers, smartphones and tablets. The differences between the software generally boil down to UX changes, feature additions and technological upgrades, as explained by a long-working company commander firefighter:

> "Before that, we also had an operational management system that was another model. It also worked, but perhaps it didn't have the same capabilities. Now we were moving on to something else. And in 10 years' time, we'll be moving on to something else." SDIS1

And with each new SGO, built from scratch, the old one is suppressed. A great emphasis is being put on the formal aspect of the replacement order, as shown in this quote by a captain gendarme:

> "For our command tools, we had the DB2000 application, [...] which has now been replaced by Pulsar. [...] This comes from ATG, which says "get your hands on this software, which in three months' time will replace it". And at three months plus 0.0 minutes, the software disappears" GEND1

To sum up, replacement happens when one or multiple artifacts are being suppressed while one or multiple artifacts are being introduced in the EoA.

<footnote n="6">⁶https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sis.smartemis&hl=fr&pli=1</footnote>
### 4.2.9 Movement's impacting phenomena

Our thematic analysis led us to discover phenomena impacting the movements hap-
pening: movements leading to unvoluntary movements acting as a rippling effect and
major crisis acting as accelerators.

*Ripple effects of movements*

In the majority of cases, movements are followed by involuntary, more minor changes, with uncontrolled consequences, also altering the EoA.

We observed the following examples: replacement-like changes (4.2.8) were observed following the personal-to-professional (4.2.1) movement use-case where the introduction of WHATSAPP progressively replaces regular texts and ROCKET.CHAT, or in the horizontal (4.2.5) inter-service movement where GEOCONCEPT is 4.2.6) sup-pressed in order to use CRIMSON TACTICS. Another example would be realignment-like changes (4.2.7) following bottom-up (4.2.4) introduction of KDELIB or outside-introduction (4.2.2) of AGENDIS which was also followed by practice realignments.

This raises the question: if those events occur in every movement use-case we observe, shouldn't there be a category pointing to involuntary phenomena from voluntary movements? Therefore, we recognise rippling effects of movements in our use-cases, resembling little movements, which could be seen as "unvoluntary consequences inside the EoA following a movement's apparition, generating indirect changes to relationships, artifacts, etc. above the movement's directly implicated artifacts", as previously explained in the related work section.

*Major crisis as accelerators of movements*

COVID-19, European wars

Our thematic analysis highlighted how major crisis act as accelerators of move-
ments. Crisis might be seen as huge tsunamis, altering established artifacts socio-
technical organization. Some events are accelerators of movement. They are defined
as events that generate multiple movements and ripples in an existing EoA. In the
thematic analysis, we identify two events that match this definition: the global COVID-
19 pandemic and the current war in Ukraine. The pandemic put priorities on tools'
development, such as teleconsulting software, as this quote by a headquarters officer
shows:

"[COVID] was a real pusher, in fact, in terms of digital tools [develop-
ment]. It was a real gas pedal." EMIZ1

but also on dematerialization, inter-service partnerships strength, sanitary protec-
tion improvement, and so on. But these EoA evolutions have come with issues, as
explained by a firefighter who worked during COVID-19:

"These are things that were in the pipeline, but which became necessary
during Covid and after Covid. [...] On the other hand, things accelerated so
quickly that they weren't completely fortified." SDIS7
The current war between Ukraine and Russia has led to accelerated changes in cybersecurity (e.g. VPN integration, password security, etc.) to prepare for possible cyberattacks, as this quote by a company commander shows :

> "IT charters have evolved considerably, and have become much more detailed. We have to change our passwords at least every three months, using super-strong characters. [...] In fact, the cyber part [...] we've become considerably more aware of it over the past year." SDIS1

Therefore, a global crisis might be seen as an adjacent accelerator of civil security's EoA dynamics, as it prioritises certain movements.

In conclusion to this section, we identify movements as fundamental to the dynamics of an Ecology of Artifacts, highlighting both the factors that accelerate them and the ripple effects they create throughout the ecology.

# 5 Discussion

Our contribution is the identification of movements as constitutive elements of the life of an ecology of artifacts, as well as the factors that accelerate these movements and the ripple effects they produce within the EoA: personal-to-organizational (4.2.1), outside-introduction (4.2.2), top-down (4.2.3), bottom-up (4.2.4), horizontal (4.2.5), user-motivated suppression (4.2.6), realignment (4.2.7), replacement (4.2.8), rippling effects (4.2.9) and accelerating movements factors (4.2.9). The next sections discuss our results, adding adaptability to EoA's characteristics, describe the movement circumstances of appearance, mix EoA from several levels, and describe a movement-sensitive design and generalizability to other groups.

## 5.1 Another EoA characteristics: adaptability

While previous work testifies of artifacts' variability (Sørensen and Kjeldskov 2014), the existence of one or multiple movements changing the EoA documents its adaptability. It's unstable and changing in nature. Incidents are handled and lives are saved despite tools and software constantly changing, demonstrating adaptability. It's a major strength, as each voluntary movement leads to a wave of consequences inside the EoA (e.g. necessary realignment, replacement). Adaptability allows consolidation in the face of change and functionality, an ability to return to balance and homeostasis. When a major crisis occurs, such as COVID-19 or war, it acts as a tidal wave, impacting major parts of the socio-technical environment, including actors and artifacts of the EoA. This observation raises the question: Is adaptability allowing such frequent changes, or is instability imposing adaptability on the EoA to function and survive in the long term? Further researches are needed.

To sum up, civil security's EoA is adaptable, suggesting that it can be worked with and changed to accommodate new tools instead of working against them (Schmidt 2018).
## 5.2 Movement's circumstances of appearance

The circumstances of appearance and the characteristics of each movement constitute an alternative way of classification, no longer in terms of the people involved as we have done until now, but in terms of the circumstantial features of their emergence.

We can distinguish between spontaneous and planned movements, underlining the implicit idea of time-related dynamics inside the EoA. Some movements occur more quickly, driven by urgent needs over a few weeks, mostly in an unplanned, informal way, close to local improvisation, while other movements unfold over long time periods, months or years, gradually and formally, driven by policymakers. For example, the personal-to-professional (4.2.1) movement shows how WHATSAPP is positioning itself as the instant messaging app among firefighters in an unplanned, informal, and not recommended way. The outside-introduction (4.2.2) movement changes the EoA in a gradual, formal and planned way, involving a large set of dedicated agents working on its adoption. While relying on familiar tools when facing an imminent crisis has already been identified as a commonplace in CSCW literature (Polites and Karahanna 2013; Dennis and Garfield 2003), the variety of movements and use cases found in civil security's EoA suggests that opposite dynamics might also be considered.

When looking further into the formal and planned movements like the outside-introduction (4.2.2) movement, we identified specific introduction steps: a) test and adapt to the needs; b) deployment containing b.1) training phase and b.2) support phase. We found similar test and progressive deployment steps in the top-down (4.2.3) configuration, accompanied by preliminary retrospection and tool validation by managers. This process is close to the 2-dimensional sociotechnical alignment work described by Rossitto et al. (2014) to allow integration-in-practice: 1) choose the artifact to integrate, generally with negotiations close to a prospect, tool validation and test-and-adapt steps, and 2) circulate information, assimilated to the deployment phase. Islind et al.'s (2019) work also suggests that interoperability between already implemented and new tools (Iroju et al. 2013) might add manual work to complete integration-in-practice, implying a last phase that has not yet been identified in our cases. Those results imply different levels of movement and further results when detailing the composition of movements.

Our results support the idea that movements are not necessarily independent of one another, nor are the artifacts composing the EoA. The movement types are not exhaustive nor mutually exclusive and can therefore be combined. The replacement (4.2.8) phenomena occurring with movement show how they can be combined, and the KDELIB case describes how bottom-up (4.2.4) and top-down (4.2.3) movement can be combined for one artifact's introduction. We present examples of multiple artifacts being concerned by a single evolution movement, such as the realignment (4.2.7) around COVID-19 related artifacts (EXCEL SPREADSHEET, GLPI tickets and emails), while one artifact might live through several dynamics like Kanban in user-motivated suppression (4.2.6) and top-down introduction through the manager's orders of use, echoing Bergman et al.'s (2007) work on *boundary objects* moving from one EoA to another. This idea of movement being linked together hints at the possibility of homeostasis, as if the movements were responding to one another in a quest for balance. For example, with suppression (4.2.6) being a consequence of an introduction movement.
This would be consistent with the realignment (4.2.7) movement happening after most of the movements for adjustment with already adopted tools, echoing Rossitto et al.'s (2014) work of *integration-in-practice*, searching for this balance and homeostasis for the users.

Therefore, the movements can be differentiated according to the populations involved in the EoA, as well as the circumstances of their appearance, their temporality, their formality, their possible combinations, and many other factors. Future recommendations for EoA's management could leverage this type of knowledge to better grasp movement identification and management.

## 5.3 Crossing levels of EoA

Our results present movements crossing different levels of EoA, such as the personal-to-professional (4.2.1) movements suggesting the existence of personal EoA versus a professional EoA, or the horizontal (4.2.5) movements going from one EoA to another without sovereignty. This suggests the existence of a strong link between users and their tools, independently of their levels of use (Formentini et al. 2025):

* **personal EoA:** focuses on the practices and tools of a single person, in its private environment (Jung et al. 2008);

* **group EoA** or collective EoA (Korsgaard et al. 2022), coordinated EoA (Bardram and Bossen 2005) or community EoA (Bødker et al. 2016): focuses on shared EoA among multiple individuals (Vasiliou et al. 2020; Lyle et al. 2020);

* **organisational EoA**: focuses on work-related EoAs, in the professional space, generally concerning multiple individuals (Bødker and Klokmose 2012; Bødker et al. 2016; Korsgaard et al. 2022);

Even by focusing on the organisational EoA, our results end up broaching the subject of personal (e.g. personal-to-professional (4.2.1) movement of WHATSAPP) and group EoA (e.g. horizontal (4.2.5) movement of KLAXOON). This suggests that the organisational EoA is partially built on shared personal or group EoAs, as previously observed in co-working communities (Bødker et al. 2016) and collaborative-writing settings (Larsen-Ledet et al. 2020). Those levels are interconnected, as an artifact might be part of multiple EoAs, close to Rossitto et al.'s (2014) *integration-in-practice* concept, stating that an alignment of artifacts allows proper integration of new technology. Artifacts in one's ecology might also be used simultaneously and shared among users, becoming an *aligned EoA* in Larsen-Ledet et al.'s (2020) word.

Therefore, considering multiple EoA's alignments looks pretty efficient to understand the tool's emergence and difficulties of adoption in EoAs. In addition to further studies on the subject, future recommendations for collaborative tools' introduction might take advantage of the several intertwined EoAs' existence.

## 5.4 Towards movement-sensitive design

The definition of movement helps find practical solutions for EoA that do not satisfy users or facilitate the introduction of new tools. Our research suggests ways to redirect, prevent, facilitate, or support movements in EoA as they help restore homeostasis. A
*movement-sensitive design* approach would be an alternative to traditional top-down strategies, a method that facilitates the alignment of tools within existing Ecologies of Artifacts. Here, the term *design* points to integration processes, service design or the facilitation of tool introduction. This approach would understand design at a level beyond focusing solely on requirements, software, and product. It would include at its root the service (Farshchian and Mikalsen 2024), architecture, deployment method and policy level consideration (Plegat and Lewkowicz 2025; Jackson et al. 2014). It would follow Bødker and Klokmose (2012) and Cormi et al. (2022) conclusions that considering EoAs is relevant when trying to deploy a new tool in organizations, and Tungare et al. (2006) conclusions about the necessity for designers to consider ecosystems when designing devices in order to save equilibrium, as it is the trait of a healthy and changing ecology. The objective would be to consider already adopted tools when introducing a new artifact, swimming with the current rather than against it. The knowledge surrounding the movements might come in handy when finding a way to support this introduction, considering multiple criteria such as the needs, the urgency, and/or the opportunities for change within the EoA. Some movements already have similarities with well-known appropriation examples, such as the realignment (4.2.7) movement sharing similarities with the use-case of Excel spreadsheet described by Nardi (1993), as "the empty, application-neutral spreadsheet allows the users to create their own domain- and task-specific one" (Wulf et al. 2018).

### 5.4.1 Mitigating ripple effects

First, movement-sensitive design could focus on mitigating or eliminating the consequences of movement or ripple effects, enabling designers to minimise them as much as possible. For example, our results show how the SDIS's EoA density generates multiple issues for the users. Solutions invested in by the policy makers are often building one unique big new tool or platform, replacing every other artifacts. But it is not an EoA-considerate solution: the bigger the tool, the bigger the unpredicted waves. First, because it would add even more tools to the overloaded, little-known, redundant and partially interconnected civil security EoA, leading to a restricted use of specific tools. Second, because it works against users' habits and requires a complete start-over, which a cascade of consequences always follows our results show. Third, because one unique tool for all civil security populations might not allow *professional consistency* or service-specific needs to be fulfilled.

But this solution strikes as nearly impossible given the complexity and interdependencies of artifacts with one another. How could one consider all possible outcomes and changes in practices for all implicated actors on such a collaborative global level? This approach is about reducing the unintended consequences by prioritizing interconnectivity instead, for example, allowing data sharing among several EoA's software. This way, users' needs will be filled without additional difficulties tied to a new tool's adoption. As Bryson et al. (2023) said, it is better to improve something than to start from scratch. That is also what policy makers from the gendarmerie's services told us:

> "Because we have the impression that the bigger we make it, the more money we make. I can tell you from experience, the bigger you make it, the
more money you lose. So it's better to work on interoperability than on huge
systems. I think it will be better than one single platform." GEND3

Initiatives in this direction have been taken by developers and computer science researchers, such as the OP4L software presented by Grandbastien and Nowakowski (2014), which ensures interoperability among data across services. Scientific literature also shows researchers taking EoA into account when introducing new tools, for example, the work of Oleksik et al. (2012) and de Lanerolle et al. (2010) in a nano-photonic laboratory. As this is a complex subject with many challenges, our future work will focus on finding concrete solutions to apply this approach to EoA and artifacts design.

### 5.4.2 Embracing ripple effects

Second, movement-sensitive design could embrace these ripple effects, guiding designers to develop solutions that restore homeostasis and equilibrium as quickly as possible. In this type of solution, introducing a new tool would be done with interoperability in mind, enabling a smooth glide into the EoA rather than trying to fix what prevents its adoption. For example, rippling effects of movements such as replacement and acceleration factors such as national crisis might be seen as possible movement-sensitive factors, allowing changing movements to appear or disappear (e.g., introduce a new tool after a huge crisis and not during, take advantage of replacement to suppress zombie artifacts, etc).

Those practical recommendations would be useful for civil security's IT department, responsible of formal tool's introduction in civil security, but also for the policy makers, choosing the tools to develop and finance, for the designers and engineers building the collaborative technological tools to begin with, while also supporting CSCW researchers on long-term inter-service collaboration and Crisis management researchers on civil security's collaborative needs. Our future research will target this approach for movement-sensitive design.

## 5.5 Limits - Generalizability to other settings

Our findings are contextually bound to the French SDIS firefighting service. However, we believe our conclusions may be generalised to other collaborative groups. The discovery of integration-in-practice dynamics in collaborative writing academic environments (Rossitto et al. 2014) shows that some movements are everyday and might be generalized to other collaborative work settings. Same with Jarrahi et al.'s (2017) observations of artifacts exchanges among EoAs in various populations (e.g. business and strategy consulting, higher education, web and user experience design, communication and content management, IT support, real estate, legal services) hint at the possibility of personal-to-professional (4.2.1), horizontal (4.2.5) or top-down (4.2.3) movements outside civil security.

Our movements framework could be extended for application to domain like the
event management business, as it involves multiple collaborative populations (e.g.
production company clients, catering personnel, set-up managers), mobile work with
on-site travelling and cooperative management for short or long-term tasks (e.g. find-
ing multi-sockets and microphones for the music band, renting large spaces for outside
shows). In this context, a disrupting event could take the form of a sick singer right
before their concert or the dysfunction of a rare painting exhibit's air conditioning
system. Both of those examples share characteristics with civil security crisis manage-
ment, as they also have heavy consequences on the normal course of the event, they
have to be quickly resolved as they were not predicted, and they involve the coor-
dination of multiple individuals to be solved. Scientific literature shows how a live
concert can be seen as a collaborative EoA with multiple actors and multidimensional
artifacts, with policy makers and outside actors having impact on the concert's con-
struction (Behr et al. 2016) or how exhibitions can be treated as *interaction ecologies*
implying frequent new tool's adoption (Galleries, Library, Archives, and Museums)
(Savasta and Ultav 2022).

It might also apply to the construction and civil engineering domain, for simi-
lar reasons of distributed multi-agency, involving multiple collaborative populations
(e.g. architects, site managers, plumbers), mobile work (e.g. on-site observation of
work progress, calculation work in the office, clients' visits) and cooperative manage-
ment (e.g. deciding where electricity will run with the technicians and the interior
designer, drawing and constructing an entire building with the manufacturer's team).
A crisis could be particularly bad weather for weeks or a serious injury on the con-
struction site. For example, literature also reports a hybridization movement inside
civil engineering's EoA (Harty and Whyte 2010). Urbanization system articles like
Roy et al. (2016) mention the importance of considering pre-existing ecologies as they
also observe constant, fast-changing technical systems.

Therefore, future studies will explore other sectors as similar or related or new
movements might be found.

6 Conclusion

In this paper, we discussed the lens of Ecologies of Artifact to present and study
the concepts of *movements* and *ripple effects* through the example of the evolutive
dynamics of civil security's collaborative tools. After describing a complex, dense, mis-
understood, redundant, and interconnected socio-technical system—highly functional
and effective—we introduced eight movements. We discuss then the adaptability of
EoA, the movement circumstances of appearance, the crossing of multi-levelled EoAs,
along with the perspective of a *movement-sensitive design*. We use French civil secu-
rity use-cases to study movements. We believe that our results can be generalized to
other populations, as we see common ground with work on civil engineering's EoA
hybridization (Harty and Whyte 2010), research on live concerts seen as multidimen-
sional EoAs (Behr et al. 2016) or use-case on galleries, libraries, archives and museums
ecologies of frequent new tool's adoption (Savasta and Ultav 2022).

Our study introduced the concept of *movement* to describe collaboration and evo-
lution in complex socio-technical environments, along with concepts such as *ripping*
*effect of movements, accelerating events and zombie artifacts*. These elements would
be the base of a perspective movement-sensitive design approach, building on the
existing EoAs strength to reduce disruptions between laboratory situations and real collaborative environments, and to propose concrete solutions to facilitate the introduction and/or removal of collaborative tools in a professional environment. Our work also offers a use case for the CSCW concept of artifact ecologies. Further studies might draw on our work to explore other movements, such as suppression movements, as well as other populations’ EoA and the emergence of movements. As a next step, we plan to elaborate on a proposal for movement-sensitive design with a focus on practical interventions. We also aim to dive deeper into the detailed composition of movements, as their consequences, frictions, and challenges can provide valuable analytical insights to better facilitate and support real-life EoA users.

# 7 Acknowledgments

We thank the members of SDIS and their partners for their participation in this research.

# 8 Permissions

All quotations in this paper have been obtained and shared following the informed and written consent of the participants.

# 9 Author Contribution

All authors contributed equally to this work.

# 10 Funding Declaration

This work was supported by a French government grant managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche as part of the France 2030 program, reference ANR-22-EXEN-0003 (PEPR eNSEMBLE / PILOT).

# References

* Aanestad, M., M. Grisot, O. Hanseth, and P. Vassilakopoulou eds. 2017. *Information Infrastructures within European Health Care*. Health Informatics. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

* Bardram, J.E. and C. Bossen. 2005. Mobility Work: The Spatial Dimension of Collaboration at a Hospital. pp. 131–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-005-0989-y

* Behr, A., M. Brennan, M. Cloonan, S. Frith, and E. Webster. 2016, January. Live Concert Performance: An Ecological Approach. *Rock Music Studies* 3(1): 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/19401159.2015.1125633.
Bergman, M., G. Mark, and K. Lyytinen. 2007, November. Boundary Objects in Design: An Ecological View of Design Artifacts. *Journal of the Association for Information Systems* 8 (11): 546–568. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00144.

Braun, V. and V. Clarke. 2021. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? *Qualitative Research in Psychology* 18(3): 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238.

Bryson, J.M., B. Barberg, A. Carroll, B. George, J. Gonzalez, J. Rochester, L. Vander-
smissen, and B. Zaki. 2023. Addressing Complex and Cross-Boundary Challenges
in Government:

Bødker, S. and C.N. Klokmose 2012, October. Dynamics in artifact ecologies. In *Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design*, Copenhagen Denmark, pp. 448–457. ACM.

Bødker, S., H. Korsgaard, and J. Saad-Sulonen 2016, February. 'A Farmer, a Place and at least 20 Members': The Development of Artifact Ecologies in Volunteer-based Communities. In *Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing*, CSCW '16, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1142–1156. Association for Computing Machinery.

Caldeira, C., C. R.B. de Souza, L. Machado, M. Perin, and P. Bjørn. 2023, June. Crisis Readiness: Revisiting the Distance Framework During the COVID-19 Pandemic. *Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 32*(2): 237–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-022-09427-6.

Cormi, C., K. Abou-Amsha, M. Tixier, and M. Lewkowicz. 2022, January. Considering the Artifact Ecology when Supporting the Evolution of Practices - Analyzing the Parallel Journeys of Two Teleconsultation Software in a General Hospital. *Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6* (GROUP): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3492821.

de Lanerolle, T.R., S. DeFabbia-Kane, D. Gochev, W.V. Anderson, E. Fox-Epstein, and R.A. Morelli 2010. Development of a virtual dashboard for event coordination between multiple groups. In *Proceedings of the 7th International ISCRAM Conference*.

Dennis and Garfield. 2003. The Adoption and Use of GSS in Project Teams: Toward More Participative Processes and Outcomes. *MIS Quarterly* 27(2): 289. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036532.

Duckert, M., C. Lee, and P. Bjørn. 2025, March. The Ripple Effect of Information Infrastructures. *Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 34*(1): 207–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-024-09509-7.
Farshchian, B.A. and M. Mikalsen. 2024, September. Using a Service Lens to Better Understand Practices -and Vice Versa. *Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)* 33(3): 499-551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-023-09478-3.

Formentini, L., F. Charoy, and M. Tixier. 2025, May. Changing collaborative tools: Introductory dynamics of digital collaborative tools in civil security's ecologies of artifacts. *Proceedings of the International ISCRAM Conference*. https://doi.org/10.59297/m1qksb05.

Formentini, L., M. Tixier, and F. Charoy. 2025. Studying digitally supported collaboration through Artifact Ecologies: a State of art.

Gaglio, G., M. Lewkowicz, and M. Tixier. 2016, November. "It is Not Because You Have Tools that You Must use Them": The Difficult Domestication of a Telemedicine Toolkit to Manage Emergencies in Nursing Homes. In *Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Supporting Group Work*, Sanibel Island Florida USA, pp. 223-233. ACM.

Gasser, L. 1986, July. The integration of computing and routine work. *ACM Transactions on Information Systems* 4(3): 205-225. https://doi.org/10.1145/214427.214429.

Grandbastien, M. and S. Nowakowski. 2014. Connaissances embarquées pour personnaliser les environnements d'apprentissage : Application à la plate-forme OP4L. https://doi.org/10.3406/stice.2014.1103.

Handel, M.J. and S. Poltrock. 2011, March. Working around official applications: experiences from a large engineering project. In *Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work*, CSCW '11, New York, NY, USA, pp. 309-312. Association for Computing Machinery.

Harty, C. and J. Whyte. 2010, April. Emerging Hybrid Practices in Construction Design Work: Role of Mixed Media. *Journal of Construction Engineering and Management* 136(4): 468-476. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000146.

Iroju, O., A. Soriyan, I. Gambo, and J. Olaleke. 2013, May. Interoperability in Healthcare: Benefits, Challenges and Resolutions. *International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies* 3(1): 262-270.

Islind, A.S., T. Lindroth, J. Lundin, and G. Steineck. 2019, September. Shift in translations: Data work with patient-generated health data in clinical practice. *Health Informatics Journal* 25(3): 577-586. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458219833097.

Jackson, S.J., T. Gillespie, and S. Payette. 2014, February. The policy knot: re-integrating policy, practice and design in cscw studies of social computing. In *Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work*
*& social computing*, CSCW '14, New York, NY, USA, pp. 588–602. Association for Computing Machinery.

Jarrahi, M.H., S.B. Nelson, and L. Thomson. 2017, October. Personal artifact ecologies in the context of mobile knowledge workers. *Computers in Human Behavior* 75: 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.028.

Jung, H., E. Stolterman, W. Ryan, T. Thompson, and M. Siegel 2008, October. Toward a framework for ecologies of artifacts: how are digital artifacts interconnected within a personal life? In *Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: building bridges*, Lund Sweden, pp. 201–210. ACM.

Karasti, H. 2014, October. Infrastructuring in participatory design. In *Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1*, PDC '14, New York, NY, USA, pp. 141–150. Association for Computing Machinery.

Korsgaard, H., P. Lyle, J. Saad-Sulonen, C.N. Klokmose, M. Nouwens, and S. Bødker. 2022, November. Collectives and Their Artifact Ecologies. *Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction* 6 (CSCW2): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555533.

Larsen-Ledet, I., H. Korsgaard, and S. Bødker 2020. Collaborative Writing Across Multiple Artifact Ecologies: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. In *CHI 2020 - Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*. Place: New York Publisher: Association for Computing Machinery.

Lee, C.P., P. Dourish, and G. Mark 2006, November. The human infrastructure of cyberinfrastructure. In *Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work*, Banff Alberta Canada, pp. 483–492. ACM.

Ley, B., T. Ludwig, V. Pipek, D. Randall, C. Reuter, and T. Wiedenhoefer. 2014, December. Information and Expertise Sharing in Inter-Organizational Crisis Management. *Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 23*(4-6): 347–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-014-9205-2.

Ley, B., V. Pipek, C. Reuter, and T. Wiedenhoefer 2012, May. Supporting improvisation work in inter-organizational crisis management. In *Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*, Austin Texas USA, pp. 1529–1538. ACM.

Linot, B. 2021. *Confiance dans les situations de travail collaboratifs médiatisés par des environnements numériques*. Ph. D. thesis, Université de Lorraine.

Lyle, P., H. Korsgaard, and S. Bødker 2020, October. What's in an Ecology? A Review of Artifact, Communicative, Device and Information Ecologies. In *Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences*,
*Shaping Society*, Tallinn Estonia, pp. 1–14. ACM.

Monteiro, E., N. Pollock, O. Hanseth, and R. Williams. 2013, August. From Artefacts to Infrastructures. *Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 22*(4-6): 575–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-012-9167-1.

Munkvold, B.E. 2023. Supporting Inter-Agency Collaboration in Emergency Management: Recurring Challenges Relevant for CSCW. In *Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work*. Publisher: European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies (EUSSET).

Nardi, B.A. 1993, July. *A Small Matter of Programming: Perspectives on End User Computing*. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

Nardi, B.A. 1996. Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition, *Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction*, 69–102. Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.

Oleksik, G., N. Milic-Frayling, and R. Jones 2012, February. Beyond data sharing: artifact ecology of a collaborative nanophotonics research centre. In *Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work*, Seattle Washington USA, pp. 1165–1174. ACM.

Pipek, V., S.B. Liu, and A. Kerne. 2014, December. Crisis Informatics and Collaboration: A Brief Introduction. *Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 23*(4-6): 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-014-9211-4.

Pipek, V. and V. Wulf. 2009, May. Infrastructuring: Toward an Integrated Perspective on the Design and Use of Information Technology. *Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10*(5). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00195.

Plegat, M. and M. Lewkowicz. 2025, May. "I do not see the point of using the system". Understanding a Broken Policy Knot in the Primary Care Sector. *Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.* 9(2): CSCW105:1–CSCW105:28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3711003.

Polites, G. and E. Karahanna. 2013, March. The Embeddedness of Information Systems Habits in Organizational and Individual Level Routines: Development and Disruption. *Management Information Systems Quarterly* 37(1): 221–246.

Robinson, J.J., K. Starbird, and J. Maddock 2015. Examining the Role of Human and Technical Infrastructure during Emergency Response. In *Proceedings of the ISCRAM 2015 Conference*.

Rossitto, C., C. Bogdan, and K. Eklundh. 2014, April. Understanding Constellations of Technologies in Use in a Collaborative Nomadic Setting. *Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 23*. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-013-9196-4.
Roy, A.H., K.A. Capps, R.W. El-Sabaawi, K.L. Jones, T.B. Parr, A. Ramírez, R.F. Smith, C.J. Walsh, and S.J. Wenger. 2016, March. Urbanization and stream ecology: diverse mechanisms of change. *Freshwater Science 35*(1): 272–277. https://doi.org/10.1086/685097.

Savasta, D. and Z.T. Ultav. 2022, December. Exposing Collections through Interaction Ecologies: A Prototype for Architectural Ephemera. *Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage 15*(4): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531528.

Schmidt, K. 2018, April. *Practice and Technology*, Volume 1. Oxford University Press.

Star, S.L. and J.R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 - Susan Leigh Star, James R. Griesemer, 1989. *Social Studies of Science 19*(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001.

Star, S.L. and K. Ruhleder 1994, October. Steps towards an ecology of infrastructure: complex problems in design and access for large-scale collaborative systems. In *Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work*, CSCW '94, New York, NY, USA, pp. 253–264. Association for Computing Machinery.

Suchman, L.A. 1987. *Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication*. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Pages: xii, 203.

Sørensen, H. and J. Kjeldskov. 2014. Concepts of Multi-artifact Systems in Artifact Ecologies. *Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions*.

Tang, C., Y. Chen, B.C. Semaan, and J.A. Roberson 2015, February. Restructuring Human Infrastructure: The Impact of EHR Deployment in a Volunteer-Dependent Clinic. In *Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing*, CSCW '15, New York, NY, USA, pp. 649–661. Association for Computing Machinery.

Tungare, M., P.S. Pyla, M. Pérez-Quiñones, and S. Harrison. 2006, December. Personal Information Ecosystems and Implications for Design. arXiv:cs/0612081.

Vasiliou, C., A. Ioannou, and P. Zaphiris. 2020, April. From behaviour to design: implications for artifact ecologies as shared spaces for design activities. *Behaviour & Information Technology 39*(4): 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1601258.

Vermersch, P. 1996. *L'entretien d'explicitation en formation initiale et en formation continue*. Paris: ESF Editeur.
Wulf, V., V. Pipek, D. Randall, M. Rohde, K. Schmidt, and G. Stevens. 2018. *Socio-informatics: A Practice-based Perspective on the Design and Use of IT Artifacts*. Oxford University Press.

Zellner, K.A. 2025, January. Designing Computerized Support for Delay Awareness During Time-Critical Teamwork. In *The 2025 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work*, Hilton Head South Carolina USA, pp. 99–102. ACM.