Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!voder!pyramid!athertn!hemlock!mcgregor
From: mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor)
Newsgroups: comp.groupware
Subject: Re: Group Calendar Sharing
Message-ID: <28027@athertn.Atherton.COM>
Date: 31 Jul 90 17:44:43 GMT
References: <46147@brunix.UUCP>
Sender: news@athertn.Atherton.COM
Reply-To: mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor)
Organization: Atherton Technology -- Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 48

In article <46147@brunix.UUCP>, muru@iris.brown.edu writes:

> a) The prominent scenarios for an office scheduling are:
> 1) Each participant has equal access to anyone's calendar (can R/W on any
>    calendar).
> 2) Same as 1 except that s/he can R anyone's calendar but only W his or her
>    calendar.
> 3) A select group of participants (typically managers) having R access
>    to all calendar's but (in)directly having W access to all (or most)
>    calendars. Situations for this scenario was pointed out by Scott McGregor
>    mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM - Article 236.
> 
> Technically, scenario 2) seems to be the most appropriate for which
scheduling
> systems should be aimed at.
> 

> I would appreciate if someone could post a summary of the important
conclusions
> drawn from previous discussions on this topic that I have missed. 

Considering the scenarios above, scenarios 1) and 3) have the opportunity for
most leverage as groupware, that is, a technology that fundamentally
changes the way all members work.  Scenario 2) is most like a
personal productivity tool, in that everyone still has to go through
the personal work of doing the scheduling requested of them.  You can
really see this clearly in the interactions that are done to actually
get a meeting scheduled--typically mail system mediated propose-and-formalize
type negotiations.  In some cases these negotiations are via agents instead
of direct person to person, in which some additional groupware type
support is perceived, though perhaps less than if the user MUST
involve themselves in meeting negotiation when they would not care
or have a choice.  Since scenario 2) has more personal productivity
tool attributes and less groupware attributes, it is less subject
to problems that arise from machine mediated interpersonal control.

Scenarios 1 and 3 do significantly change the way individuals participate
in group actions.  This can lead to threatening machine mediated interpersonal
control, but also offers the opportunity to significantly reduce the amount
of personal overhead work needed to conduct group activities.  Details
in the construction of the system and its suitability for the specific
workgroup with its existing work cultural norms are crucial for acceptance.
Because work cultures vary so widely and details matter so much, this
does not bode well for a single product getting wide acceptance, and
may therefore inhibit development of such systems.

Scott McGregor
mcgregor@atherton.com