consensus@cdp.UUCP (06/03/90)
The following reply is from the Groupware SIG on America Online, and is a reply to a topic in the Groupware SIG archive already uploaded to comp.groupware. For more information, or 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: D3516 * Internet: cdp!consensus@arisia.xerox.com * UUCP: uunet!pyramid!cdp!consensus :: reply to America Online topic "An Essay on Groupware" :: Subj: Comment: "peers" 90-04-25 01:21:28 EDT From: Shep T You mention explicitly that groupware should be software that helps "peers" work together on some problem. I very much agree that this SHOULD be the model for groupware. Unfortunately, it may not ultimately turn out this way. I've spent several years developing a groupware software product (a group scheduling/calendar application) that we've very conciously designed as being de-centralized and very peer-to-peer. Every user is equal. Unfortunately, many people in business do NOT look at the world as being peer-to-peer. They look at the boss as being a different class of user as the "workers". Very literally. Alot of people liked our design, but many people (usually in big companies, I might add) reacted badly to this part. Market forces (big companies buy lots of software) will cause software developers to create software that upper management will feel comfortable with (ie. where the boss has a different status). In fact, the groupware that I've heard of being developed by the big software companies uses the boss/worker dichotomy model as part of the design. Groupware designed by big companies for big companies will set a bad example in this area. I think this will be a bigger problem (sociologically) than alot of people realize. People will rebel against software that puts people into different classes... Subj: Perceived Need vs Ultimate Potential 90-05-07 23:46:35 EDT From: Shadofax Right on, Shep. Big companies aren't going to buy into a technology because it's a liberating force. Indeed, if big companies adopt groupware, they will do so DESPITE the potential for organizational change. Oh, there will be a lot of noise from vendors and the occasional user visionary. But very little groupware - by any definition - will be sold if we wait for Fortune 1000 buyers to step forward and say "Yeah, sign me up! I want to flatten my organization!" Groupware, taken to its fullest potential, promises radical change. And you don't propose radical change without offending the Established Order. We'll be lucky if someone doesn't try to pass a law against groupware. (In the corporate lexicon, "laws" are called "standards.") I accept these realities, but I am not worried for the future of groupware. I believe in the potential of groupware to change organizations - not through the merits of a particular product or design - but through a fundamental bias in the medium. I also believe most big companies won't perceive the true potential of groupware - initially. Yet, most big companies WILL perceive value in groupware - a nearsighted yet tangible, bottom-line value. They'll look at groupware, not as an agent of profound change, but as a support structure for the existing organization. Accordingly, big companies will look for groupware that promises to fit their existing organization. If they don't find said software on the shelf, they'll build it. I work for a client that is designing its own workflow management system. For all the planning memos and management presentations on the subject, I have yet to hear one word on the ultimate potential of the new system. They think they're building a system that will expedite paper flow and monitor workers' performance. Nobody seems to recognize that the new system is going to make telecommuting a viable option for large portions of the work force. Groupware products, to succeed, must be designed to suit the PERCIEVED NEED as well as the ULTIMATE POTENTIAL. Big companies will purchase and implement groupware for the perceived need. Later, when it is staring them in the face, they will also want to realize its ultimate potential. A good solution is one that allows them to move from perceived need to ultimate potential without changing products. Groupware is yet another Trojan Horse story. It's an overused metaphor, I admit, but that's because it describes so well the way many big organizations assimilate new technology. Give them the hierarchical functionality they think they need to buttress their organizational structure. They will wheel in the big horse, train the users, and distribute the manuals. Next morning they will awake to the sound of birds twittering. Unaccustomed to the morning light, they blink their eyes in amazement. The roof is missing and the walls have been smashed to the ground. The structure is leveled. -- The Shadow
db@witzend.East.Sun.COM (David Brownell) (06/05/90)
I'm interested in the social/sociological/political issues raised in this posting. I've had similar thoughts. 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? In article <1138200010@cdp> consensus@cdp.UUCP writes: > The following reply is from the Groupware SIG on America Online ... > > Subj: Comment: "peers" 90-04-25 01:21:28 EDT > From: Shep T > > You mention explicitly that groupware should be software that helps > "peers" work together on some problem. I very much agree that this > SHOULD be the model for groupware. Unfortunately, it may not > ultimately turn out this way. Most of the large organizations that invest in technology do so for the benefits it gives them in control and predictability of production (that includes speedup of production). I just began to reread J.K. Galbraith's "The New Industrial State", and so am reminded of that fact rather strongly! 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. Just as "equality of opportunity" is a social concept that only began to be really important after there were enough basic goods (food, shelter, clothing) that most people had free time on their hands, I think that equal distribution of power/control is something that may only catch on in a serious way after it's not so hard to come by. > I've spent several years developing a groupware software product (a > group scheduling/calendar application) that we've very conciously > designed as being de-centralized and very peer-to-peer. Every user > is equal. Unfortunately, many people in business do NOT look at > the world as being peer-to-peer. They look at the boss as being a > different class of user as the "workers". Very literally. Alot of > people liked our design, but many people (usually in big companies, > I might add) reacted badly to this part. Market forces (big > companies buy lots of software) will cause software developers to > create software that upper management will feel comfortable with > (ie. where the boss has a different status). 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! > In fact, the groupware that I've heard of being developed by the > big software companies uses the boss/worker dichotomy model as part > of the design. Groupware designed by big companies for big > companies will set a bad example in this area. I think this will > be a bigger problem (sociologically) than alot of people realize. > People will rebel against software that puts people into different > classes... No more than they already rebel against such organizations. Jonathan Grudin had a fascinating paper in CSCW'88 about why groupware doesn't work ... one of the key problems he pointed out was that if benefits were inequitablly distributed, users wouldn't use the software. The classic problem was software designed to make a manager happy, but which didn't benefit the employees. Bad software ... also bad managing if you pay attention to what management texts say, but then who ever said very many managers were good. :-( > Subj: Perceived Need vs Ultimate Potential 90-05-07 23:46:35 EDT > From: Shadofax > > Right on, Shep. Big companies aren't going to buy into a > technology because it's a liberating force. Indeed, if big > companies adopt groupware, they will do so DESPITE the potential > for organizational change. Oh, there will be a lot of noise from > vendors and the occasional user visionary. But very little > groupware - by any definition - will be sold if we wait for Fortune > 1000 buyers to step forward and say "Yeah, sign me up! I want to > flatten my organization!" I suspect that corporations would rather have software help to change their organization in a controlled (by management) manner than in an uncontrolled manner (i.e. one in which non-managers have much serious veto power, by virtue of democratic action). 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."