Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!dkuug!freja!stodol From: stodol@freja.diku.dk (David Stodolsky) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Groupware Discussion Summary Keywords: Groupware Orgware Coordination Group Decision Support Filters Newsreaders Message-ID: <5003@freja.diku.dk> Date: 24 Nov 89 23:04:05 GMT Organization: DIKU, U of Copenhagen, DK Lines: 317 There seem to be two lines of discussion developing: First, what is the proper location in the name hierarchy for this group. Second, should a followups group (e. g., Sci.groupware.f) also be created. These two lines of discussion are more or less independent and could be the subject of separate Calls For Discussion and even separate votes. Comments welcome. In <8489@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) says: > >First, why is the proposed name SCI.groupware. Both the slant of the group >and the scope of the subject seem to imply that comp is a better hierarchy >to put this group in. Note that this does not preclude the discussions in >a newsgroup from being "scientific", it merely announces that the science >is about the science of computers. Groupware is not *just* the science of computers. The slant and scope relate to the computer aspect, since this is where the current discussion is, and what the current audience can most easily respond to. In fact, the most widely used groupware (according to definitions given for "group" and "ware" in the original Call For Discussion) is not at all computer related. Take Robert's Rules of Procedure, for example. There is a "slide rule" that gives summary information on various types of motions that can be quickly and easily be consulted during meetings. I would hope that Sci.groupware would include those who use these manual aids. I doubt if these people would find their way to a comp.* group. It certainly would be nice if the "groupware" that has been scientifically developed (and that which has proven useful historically) could be used to enlighten current software development. This does not seem to be the current trend (see abstract below), and I would hope to avoid repeating this trend on Usenet by using a sci.* name. The name comp.groupware would be a traditional placing for this subject. However, it could just as well be sci.psych.groupware. Logically, sci.groupware integrates information from, at least, sci.* and comp.* newsgroups. Yet another alternative would be just "Groupware", which would be a drastic break with tradition. The fundamental question is whether the name ought to reflect tradition or some kind of logical placing. The first would make it easier for experienced readers, while the second would make it easier for new readers who have to find the groups of interest to them. I would prefer the second, since, I believe that new readers are needed to bring more of a scientific view, and that the old readers will have enough experience not be confused by a non-traditional placing. >I will agree that >current discussions about groupware show up in a lot of places, but >...an existing group that might be appropriate... >as I see it, would be comp.cog-eng, The corrected Call For Discussion is cross posted to comp.cog-eng. >Now the details, > >In article <4690@freja.diku.dk> stodol@freja.diku.dk (David Stodolsky) writes: >> >>First question to the Net after creation of sci.groupware: >>How can the quality of messages that one sees be improved? > >Of course, the _real_ question (outside the scope of groupware) is >"How can the quality of message that one writes be improved?" This is within the scope of groupware. Whether one writes something is dependent on the expected consequences of that action. Since, in most cases, something has to be read before those consequences are determined, the action is socially determined. Also, lets not forget GIGO (Garbage in, garbage out) one of the most famous computer (science) truisms. >>Current discussion would probably focus on news reading >>programs, as they seem to be of most immediate interest due >>to the ever increasing message load on the Net. >> : >>The sci.groupware newsgroup would cover all types >>of hardware and software for facilitating group >>interaction. > >Support for comp.* instead of sci.* ? This last quote was in the Summary, if the question is definitional, better to look at the definitions section. In regard to the first, work on news reading programs could certainly benefit from knowledge in library science, linguistics, and psychology. >>Keywords (by decreasing centrality): >> : >>Group Decision Support Systems > >Kinda like AA? This was used in the Management Sciences before "Groupware" became popular to describe computer-based support of groups. I understand the evolution of terms as follows: Data (batch) Processing, Information Systems, Management Information Systems, Decision Support Systems, and finally, Group Decision Support Systems. > >>Team Development > >I assume this means developing using teams, and not the development _of_ >teams. No, not in the December 1988 issue of _Byte_ magazine. As I recall, it described a system where people, prior to being formed into a group, answered a questionnaire. After all of them were through, the machine would print various charts that are supposed to help the organizer put the group together. You might call this batch groupware. (Here is a good example of manual groupware that has been computerized. The same thing was done earlier with paper and pencil tests, and manual scoring. An example (not necessarily a good one) of how techniques from outside the computer world can be adapted for computer use.) For an example of an experiment evaluating developing using teams see Jarvenpaa, S. L., Rao, V. S., and Huber, G. P. (Dec. 1988). "Computer support for meetings of groups working on unstructured problems, _MIS Quarterly_, 12, 645-666. > >>Computer Aided Communication >>Computer Mediated Communication > >What's the difference? > None, with the current state of the field. But I'd say, if the computer dials a telephone call, it is Aided Communication, and if the computer answers a telephone call, it is Mediated Communication. >>Orgware >>Coordination Systems >>Conversation Management >>Dialogue Management >>Intelligent Agents > >These are hideous terms. What can they possibly mean? I certainly will not defend the choice of terms appearing in _Byte_. But some are also used in other sources mentioned in the original Call. The terms are well know to workers in the area. If any *one* of the terms listed is of interest, then you are a potential Sci.groupware participant. I will post the call for the First European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in "news.announce.conferences" for anyone interested in the question of appropriateness of various terms and in groupware (it has been through a few networks already, so the formatting leaves something to be desired). >>Moderation: >> >>The group will not be moderated. A sci.groupware.f, for >>followups, will be simultaneously created for responses to >>original postings (EUnet already uses this system). >>Hopefully, by time traffic becomes too high, a good "filter" >>program will be ready as a result of discussions in >>sci.groupware(.f). > >While I understand the problems which would be solved by this separation, >I also feel that there is inherent structure in the messages themselves >capable of handing the problem, if used correctly. Premiss A. >Specifically, there >are the `RE: ' characters at the beginning of the subject line, together >with the (was ... ) notation (both much abused recently), See Premiss A >and the references >line. Adequate news reading software should be able to safely guide the >reader through the newsgroups in the desired fashion using this information. Some of these problems can not be that easily solved in the highly distributed (anarchistic?) Usenet environment. For instance, jeremy@misadel.oz (Jeremy Begg) in <5696@misadel.oz> commented: ============= >In article <532.24B7A45F@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>, mju@mudos.ann->arbor.mi.us >(Marc Unangst) writes: >> The "Re^n:" business is a direct violation of RFC-1036: >> 2.1.4. Subject >> ... If the message is submitted in >> | response to another message (e.g., is a follow-up) the default >> | subject should begin with the four characters "Re:", and the >> "References" line is required. >> ... >If the 'posting' part of all newsreaders everywhere did as they were >meant to, [...] It >would then be a simple matter for the user to see all the followups to all >the items and select those discussions which were of interest, instead of >wading through a tangled mess of originals and followups. > > At the moment, I find that in some newsgroups, the followups are >received _before_ the original items -- a bit of a pain if there were 50 or >more postings received that day! =========== Unless your news reading software can trace through the references, possibly retrieve items in the chain that were lost in transmission from some archive, and so on, the flow of the argument seen will leave something to be desired. Given the reality of the situation, relying completely on the tracing of references does not seem wise, certainly a bit of redundancy in the structure might be nice even if the reference tracing system was working. (If anybody has software that does anything like this, I would like to know about it.) >Of course, the trick here is that this type of outlook [to "safely guide the reader through the newsgroups in the desired fashion"] >is what this group >is supposed to provide a home for discussing. However, I think this is >a good outlook, and wouldn't it be nice if the groupware group (if created) >were to provide an excellent example in and of itself, independent of its >content. Procedural information: In Message-ID: <818@dutrun.UUCP> winffww@dutrun.UUCP (Folkert W. Wierda) said: >You have my YES-vote on creating the newsgroup Sci.groupware. Please >don't forget to post reactions that are sent to you by E-mail. Also >consider the possibility to include BITNET-users in the discussion, as >to my impression many researchers active in the field of groupware use >that medium. Votes are only valid during the voting period that will start August 21, 1989 and continue for 30 days. According to the guidelines, they must be mailed. I will acknowledge all mail received within a few days, mailers willing. I consider mail received to be confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise (see below). Since BITNET users can not vote, I was not planning to include them at this point. If sci.groupware is created, it could be gatewayed with BITNET (Contact me if you have an interest in doing this). This posting may be redirected in full to appropriate mailing lists without permission, but please notify me, preferable in advance, if you do this. The idea is that only up to date information be redistributed. Cross posted to: comp.cog-eng, comp.mail.misc, comp.mail.elm, comp.mail.mh, comp.mail.multi-media, comp.mail.sendmail, comp.misc, comp.society.futures, comp.sys.mac, comp.text, news.misc, news.software.b, sci.psychology, sci.research Followups to this posting are directed to news.groups. Comments are welcome by email. Often in order to reduce network traffic, responses are mailed and then summarized for posting. I am handling letters concerning sci.groupware as follows: If your letter includes the statement, "This letter may be posted", or some other unambiguous indication that clearly states your mail is not to be considered confidential, I will use it in the next posting, unless it duplicates previously received material or to save you embarrassment. Otherwise, responses will present the question, requested information, or answer without identifying you. If all other addresses fail try: <....{well-connected site}!uunet!mcvax!diku!stodol> IP number (129.142.96.1) =================================================== This paper available for comment: For presentation at the International Conference on Information System, Work, and Organization Design, Berlin, GDR (July 10-13, 1989). Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Question of Personal Integrity David S. Stodolsky, PhD University of Copenhagen Abstract The expanding use of personal computers in the work place has catalyzed a new interest in cooperation. This interest appears to be generated by a "technology push". Large numbers of independent computer workstations have led to many databases controlled by individual workers. The easy interchange of this data, made technologically possible by the new networking technology, has been inhibited by inadequate mechanisms for cooperation. A significant risk exists that the cooperation embodied in these new systems will have little relationship to co-operation as it is understood by social researchers. This is because, first, the system designers confronted with these questions are primarily dealing with specific problems visible in the implementation of computer networks, and the problems are viewed as primarily technical problems that demand technical solutions. Second, the system designers tend to have little social science expertise. Third, the currently available hardware and software systems may preempt many potential co-operative solutions. These factors reinforce current trends that permit computers to play an increasingly important role in the erosion of personal integrity in the work place and in society at large. Potential outcomes of these trends include elimination of cooperatively structured organizations and a neo-Luddite reaction against the use of computer technology. ================================================= -- David S. Stodolsky, PhD Routing: <@uunet.uu.net:stodol@diku.dk> Department of Psychology Internet: Copenhagen Univ., Njalsg. 88 Voice + 45 31 58 48 86 DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark Fax. + 45 31 54 32 11 Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com