Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!hnkst2
From: hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Hanhwe N. Kim)
Newsgroups: comp.groupware
Subject: Re: coordination technology
Message-ID: <103417@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 15 Mar 91 11:50:38 GMT
References: <1991Mar12.064736.12862@syacus.acus.oz.au> <1991Mar14.182538.29557@daimi.aau.dk>
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 24

In article <1991Mar14.182538.29557@daimi.aau.dk> dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky) writes:
>
>A problem with Holt's work from ITT is the failure to recognize the
>integrity of the individual. That is, if a person switches from one role to
>another, the person can just as easily be talking to themself as to another 
>person within the framework of the coordination system. 
>Also, the concept of role is not that clear from a sociological standpoint.
>

Absolutely right.. the 'scandinavian perspective' where the interests of
workers is taken into account has been  accepted only recently .. (post
'CSCW 88) I think. Holt was more interested in the coordination of
resources in time... avoiding conflicts in resource allocation in the
project-management sense.... and insuring the completion of tasks that
other tasks relied upon.... His earlier petri-net examples, as well as
his coordination base show that.... The definition of role he gives is
more related to a job task responsibility rather than an individual.....

 It is not to say he did not care about the worker... I think there 
were references to how such a coordination base would allow more 
flexibility... etc... 
Just my truly HUMBLE opinion... I'm just a graduate student...
no disclaimer needed!:)
-Han Kim