In this paper we present a framework for describing cooperative work in informal domains such as an office. We argue that standard models of such work are inadequate for describing the adaptibility and variability observed in offices, and are fundamentally misleading as metaphors for understanding the skills and knowledge needed by computers or people to do the work. The basic claim in our alternative framework is that an agent's work is defined in terms of making and fulfilling commitments to other (...) agents, and that the tasks described in those commitments are merely agreed upon methods for fulfilling the commitments. Determining the intended meaning of those task descriptions in specific situations is an important component of the work, and the agents making the commitments decide in any given situation how and whether a given commitment has been fulfilled. We analyze subcontracting relationships, noting that the task's client and contractor both play a role in defining the subcontractor's work. Also, we analyze the use and role of procedures in informal domains, noting the interdependencies among the agents performing them, the problem solving required to perform each step, and ways in which they can be made more adaptive. Our analysis indicates that “intelligent” capabilities such as planning, plan monitoring, and negotiation are required to do even simple cooperative work. (shrink)