[comp.groupware] Groupware effects

wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) (06/06/90)

In article <1998@east.East.Sun.COM> db@witzend.East.Sun.COM (David Brownell) writes:
   What do readers of comp.groupware feel about the potential that
   groupware has to foster social or political agendas?  Is it good,
   bad, inevitable?  Is there any particular bias among the readers
   of this group?

I can say, based on my five years of working with groupware theory and
groupware systems that "must" is the correct answer.  The street has its own
uses for technology, and so does every user out there.

We cannot avoid the truth that every piece of software comes with its own
preferred methodology (implicit or explicit) and that methodology will
change the way users do work.

What's different about groupware is that it propagates the changes of/by one
user across to others.  If I use my Excel spreadsheet in one particular way,
that likely won't impact you.  If I use my news-posting software, that
likely will.  For example, I tend to hand-edit Subject: lines to make my
topics clearer.  I wish more people did, but I've learned to be careful with
the 'k' key lest I miss an interesting comment by a person who simply forgot
tochange the subject or References: line.

   I think that after information technologies are widely enough dispersed,
   THEN they could begin to be used for promoting egalitarian social agendas
   rather than a power/control agenda.  You can see this already in
   communities that have lots of computer power, and networking is an
   environmental feature.

Good luck, my friend.  Nothing will fail faster than a groupware system
which fails to recognize existing social and power relationships.  Look at
the paucity of group calendars, for example.  There's nothing new in that
technology - hasn't been for a while.  Why doesn't every PC in corporate
America have one?  (Hint: if your answer has to do with technology, you're
missing the point.)

Another question: how many executives at or near VP level in your company
use email?  I can't even get my division manager to use it.

   It's not entirely bad that the software reflect how the organization
   using it really works.  There are organizations with which I would have
   a severe conflict of values, however, and I'd rather not facilitate
   their effective functioning!

I agree with you in principle, but reality intrudes again.  We'd like to
support how people work, but the way they work is non-electronic (or they
wouldn't need our tools in the first place).  Therefore, by introducing an
electronic system, we're going to be disrupting the pattern of work.

(Nevertheless, you'll never catch me implementing a performance-monitoring
system.  There are things that just grate too much.)

--
--Alan Wexelblat
Bull Worldwide Information Systems	internet: wex@pws.bull.com
phone: (508) 671-7485			Usenet: spdcc.com!know!wex
  The taxes of every American west of the Mississippi are used to pay off
  the interest on the national debt.

db@witzend.East.Sun.COM (David Brownell) (06/06/90)

In article <WEX.90Jun5133456@sitting.pws.bull.com>
	wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes:
> In article <1998@east.East.Sun.COM>
>	db@witzend.East.Sun.COM (David Brownell) writes:

>    I think that after information technologies are widely enough dispersed,
>    THEN they could begin to be used for promoting egalitarian social agendas
>    rather than a power/control agenda.  You can see this already in
>    communities that have lots of computer power, and networking is an
>    environmental feature.
> 
> Good luck, my friend.  Nothing will fail faster than a groupware system
> which fails to recognize existing social and power relationships.

You deleted the explanatory paragraph here -- I pointed out that new
agendas can only start succeeding AFTER the existing ones get addressed.
(There IS the potential for a revolution ... but I'm not fomenting that
kind of agenda now!  Most organizations don't need them.)

We do agree on that point:  you can't successfully sell software to a
group, if using it means the group must change its nature!

I was philosophising on the next stage of development ... which seems
to peek its nose through periodically.

> Another question: how many executives at or near VP level in your company
> use email?  I can't even get my division manager to use it.

Well, even though you're only about 1 mile away, it looks like your
company culture is radically different from mine!  :-)  Illustrating
the key point rather well:  different organizations require different
software.

Seriously, within Sun (an extreme of the kind of "resource rich"
environment I referred to) everyone up to the President uses email.
VPs frequently get so much that an administrator will filter it for
them (oh, for Object Lens!), but do send and read mail themselves.
This was true of most of the companies I've worked for.

But of course, one reason that EMAIL is effective is because it CAN
reflect the various various power structures very easily.

David Brownell			db@east.sun.com.
Sun Desktop Systems Software	(508) 671-0348
"We'll get to ISO, Mars, and Pluto ... not necessarily in that order."

consensus@cdp.UUCP (07/04/90)

Subj:  corporate heirarchies                 90-07-01 22:21:34 EDT
From:  ShepT

I actually fully agree that ultimately someone needs to be allowed to make
decisions, even decisions that affect others. I am fully aware that, if given
the chance, many groups will chatter on endlessly about needless details - and
not decide efficiently because of it. (I have been the president of a software
company for several years, and I have made many decisions affecting everybody.)

Nonetheless, in order for the captain to make decisions he/she needs to have
input from the crew.  And this communication should be facilitated, not
stunted, by groupware.  A well run ship is one where the crew is free, and
encouraged, to provide info from their areas of expertise - leaving the captain
to put all the pieces together into his/her ultimate decsion.

Kent, your argument about being endlessly "nattered" by everyone would seem to
also be arguing against simple email. (Or the telephone, for that matter.)
Software should allow and support many forms of communication, going in all
sorts of directions.  It should be up to the organization involved to set
appropriate standards against unnecessary chatter, it should absolutely not be
dictated by the software itself.

* The preceeding is reply is cross-posted from the Groupware SIG on
* America Online. To reply to an individual on America Online, contact:
*
* Christopher Allen - Consensus Development
* P.O. Box 2836, Union City, CA 94587-7836
* AT&T:            (415) 487-9206
* America Online:  AFL MacDev
* AppleLink, GEnie, MacNET, MCI:  Consensus   
* Internet:        cdp!consensus@labrea.stanford.edu
* UUCP:            uunet!pyramid!cdp!consensus