[CSCW] Computer Supported Cooperative Work

1
CSCWComputer Supported Cooperative Work

• CS376 Reading Summary
• Bjoern Hartmann (bjoern_at_cs)

2
Readings

• Beyond Being ThereJim Hollan and Scott
  StornettaCHI 1992 ACM Conference on Human
  Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 119-25
• Groupware and social dynamics Eight challenges
  for developersJonathan GrudinCommunications of
  the ACM, January 1994, pp. 93-105
• Social, Individual Technological Issues for
  Groupware Calendar Systems Leysia Palen CHI
  1999 ACM Conference on Human Factors in
  Computing Systems, pp. 17-24

3
Hollan, Stornetta Beyond Being There

• Upshot most of telecommunication research is
  headed along a dead end street. Hollan
  Stornetta present an alternate route.
• The telecommunication problem afford the
  richness and variety of physically proximate
  interaction during distant interaction. (focus on
  tele part)
• Ever since Strand 1898, the standard goal has
  been totransmit synchronous audiovideo of
  realtime conversation.

gdc.com
4
Hollan, Stornetta BBT 2

• Problem imitation can never get close enough.
  Any discrepancy is decisive.
• Solution Lets forget about being there as the
  natural and perfect state. Instead, lets develop
  communication tools that people prefer to use
  even if they could interact face-to-face. (focus
  on the communication part)

Social Presence-O-Meter
???
Face2Face
AudioVideo
Audio
Written
5
Hollan, Stornetta BBT 3

• Conceptual framework
• Communication needs are medium-independent.
• Media mediate. (duh)
• Mechanisms are medium-specific enablers of
  communication needs.
• Physical proximity is just one medium, not the
  entire model. New technologies should satisfy
  basic needs, not re-implement mechanisms.
• Significant features of computer-mediated
  communication not present in face-to-face
  interaction
• Asynchronicity, anonymity, automatic archiving

6
Hollan, Stornetta BBT 4

• Examples Email and its derivatives
• Email
• Also used in physically proximate situations
• Asynchronous
• Archival
• Ephemeral interest groups
• Informal, disposable, asynchronous discussion
  linked to (virtual) seed objects.
• Sought to increase peoples sense of presence in
  a community.
• Today Slashdot et al. definitely informal, but
  not ephemeral
• Meeting Others
• Personal homepage activity indicator
• Computing personals automatic matchmaking
• Today social networking sites - Friendster,
  Orkut, etc.

www.tc.gc.ca
7
Hollan, Stornetta BBT 5

• Email derivatives contd
• Anonymity
• Allows for discussion of issues associated with
  social stigma
• Today Group hug , FreeNet
• Semisynchronous discussion
• Discussion threads that are batch-updated in
  regular intervals
• Avoids thread-hijacking, allows for greater range
  of opinions
• Today daily digest mailing lists?
• Beyond face-to-face
• Ideas for rapid, synchronous feedback BUT with
  higher info richness
• Clarity/disambiguation
• Feedback beyond the head nod
• Easy archiving

8
Hollan, Stornetta BBT 6

• Anticipated criticism
• Imitation is good people are used to
  face-to-face interaction.HS Yes, but then we
  can never exceed what is possible in the familiar
  situation. No progress.
• You are ignoring the cultural context of media
  use.HS Culture is dynamic, will adapt.
• Only face-to-face has intersubjectivity (I know
  that you know that I know what you are talking
  about).HS Intersubjectivity is possible in any
  medium in principle. Managing it may be
  advantageous.

9
Grudin Groupware and Social Dynamics Eight
Challenges

• Upshot Groupware is situated in between
  applications aimed at individual users and
  mainframe systems targeting entire organizations.
  Because of its peculiar spot, groupware boasts an
  impressively high failure rate.Eight design and
  evaluation challenges are discussed.

10
Grudin Eight Challenges

• What is groupware?
• Defining feature software designed/used to
  support groups -gt social factors become an issue.
• Around since mid-1980s when standalone personal
  computers connected to network architectures
  became pervasive.
• Examples desktop and video conferencing,
  bulletin boards, coauthoring, calendar
  scheduling, email.
• Market mostly driven by shrink-wrapped sales
  isolated development typical of off-the-shelf
  products is behind many of the challenges
  encountered. In contrast, IS software is designed
  and deployed individually with management support.

11
Grudin Challenge 1

• Work vs. Benefit disparity
• Problem Costs and benefits from using groupware
  are often distributed unevenly. Principal
  beneficiaries are often the purchase decision
  makers/management but others have to carry out
  bulk of work without clear motivation.
• Examples meeting scheduling, voice annotation.
• Solution create benefits for all group members
  during design stage.

Demotivated schedule maintainer communicateinstit
ute.com
12
Grudin Challenge 2

• Critical Mass / Prisoners Dilemma
• Problem Groupware is only useful if most group
  member utilize it more stringent requirement
  than for individual software. If individuals
  prefer lurking/freeloading, groupware the app
  will ultimately fail.
• Solution Build in use incentives, emphasize
  individual/group benefites (vague).

sundsvall.se
13
Grudin Challenge 3

• Disruption of social processes
• Problem Groupware has to fit into implicit
  framework of social group interaction. Not all
  processes can be represented explicitly without
  violating taboos.
• Example meeting scheduling
• Solution Dont assume a completely rational work
  environment. Understand the subtleties of the
  target environment. Work with representative
  users.

14
Grudin Challenge 4

• Exception handling
• Problem Groupware has to adapt to/enable ad hoc
  problem solving and improvisation post hoc
  rule-based systems are too rigid and brittle. In
  Reality, decoupling of rules and actual work
  patterns is pervasive - allows for flexibility
  and localized judgment
• Examples the chocolate factory
• Solution Learn how work is really done.

spiralandcircle.com
15
Grudin Challenge 5

• Infrequently used features
• Problem To a hammer, everything looks like a
  nail group communication may be infrequent.
• Solution
• Integrate group features w/ individual activity
• Design should be unobtrusive yet accessible
• Add groupware features to already existing
  applications (e.g., MS Office)

16
Grudin Challenge 6

• Difficulty of evaluation
• Problem Group context introduces social,
  motivational, economic, political dynamics that
  are hard to measure. Lab situations and
  prototypes are ineffective. Because of a lack of
  definitive studies, the same mistakes are
  repeated over and over again.
• Solution Grudin doesnt know.

17
Grudin Challenge 7

• Breakdown of intuitive decision making
• Problem Developers cannot rely on their own
  individual informed intuition when group
  processes are concerned. Nor can any other
  resource inside the development environment help
  out. Too many applications target managers,
  neglecting to accommodate other users
  resistance results.
• Solution Involve real users early on in the
  design process.

18
Grudin Challenge 8

• Managing acceptance
• Problem Most CSCW software is shrink-wrapped
  developers are removed from system acceptance
  issues needs to be overcome.
• Solution Learn form IS cooperate with
  marketers package software w/ consulting
  services (Lotus Notes)

19
Grudin Wrap-up

• Evaluation of email w.r.t. 8 challenges is left
  as an exercise to the reader.
• Take home messages from the paperGroupware
  should
• Directly benefit all users.
• Augment existing applications if possible.
• Developers must
• Truly understand the working environment where
  the software will be used.
• Interact directly with the users in an iterative
  process.
• Question their own decision making processes
  during the design stage.
• Dear Mr. Grudin Concision is a virtue.

20
Palen Issues for Groupware Calendar Systems

• Upshot A synthesis of three design and
  evaluation perspectives is needed for groupware
  (in this case GCS) to be successful
  technological, individual, and social.
• Ethnographic study of GCS use at Sun Microsystems
  (software CM)
• Interviews, in-office observation, video
  recording, photographs of work environments,
  printouts of calendars, survey
• Remember critique from last paper meeting
  scheduling is the least useful groupware app

21
Palen GCS 2

• How single-perspective design and deployment
  fails
• Exclusively technology-centric development is
  cheap but often ignores reality.
• Traditional HCI takes software into account,
  but focuses only on the individual.
• CSCW looks at work practice and social
  structures, but needs the previous two levels to
  build upon.

22
Palen GCS 3
23
Palen GCS 4

• Single User Calendar Demands (arrow 1)
• Software has to support all of the flexible uses
  of a physical calendar otherwise competition
  with other calendars will result.
• Temporal orientation
• Scheduling
• Tracking (contacts, expense reports)
• Reminding
• Note recording/archiving
• Retrieval recall
• For successful adoption, calendar maintenance has
  to be simple and attractive (cf. Grudins
  challenge 1).

24
Palen GCS 5

• Interpersonal Communication (arrow 2)
• Personal and social use may conflict.
• Managing privacy / protection from peer judgment
  is mainly left to user through adopting usage
  strategies like cryptic entry, omission,
  defensive scheduling (cf. Grudins challenge 3
  disruption of social processes)
• Peer pressure results in homogenous usage
  patterns within groups
• Open calendars enable more than meeting
  scheduling locating people, mtg. room info for
  non-participants, organizational memory,
  non-meeting synchronization

25
Palen GCS 6

• Socio-technical evolution (arrow 3)
• Reciprocal interaction between organizational
  structures and technology possible at Sun since
  development was internal. What about
  off-the-shelf products?
• Default settings are rarely changed passivity
  and institutionalization

26
Palen GCS 7

• Interaction between the three levels
• Final section describes how in Suns specific
  case technological features, personal usage
  patterns, peer pressure and institutionalization
  intermesh to shape how CM is used.
• Particular setting matters we can generalize
  that these interactions happen, but not what they
  will be in any particular case.