xanthian@saturn.ads.com (Metafont Consultant Account) (12/29/89)
The science fiction novel "David's Sling" (author's last name Stieger or Steiger; I lent out my copy) contains a prominent discussion of a very desirable piece of groupware, a mechanism for achieving consensus of a large group by considering in an orderly manner all pertinent points of view with machine assistance. One of the sidelights resulting from this groupware example is that it shows the need for a "minimalist" definition of exactly what constitutes "groupware". In my own opinion, while telecommunications and live video may be "nice to have", much more of interest to me would be starting with groupware assistance for a meeting around a common table. The organization and recall of concepts, arguments, and alternatives for a group considering a complex question, or one reconsidered after the lapse of a considerable amount of time, is a task set amenable to machine assistance, and should preferable be solved before the "bells and whistles" are added to the program of work. Discussion? xanthian@well.sf.ca.us Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores.
prohaska%lapis@Sun.COM (J.R. Prohaska) (12/29/89)
In article <10211@zodiac.ADS.COM> Metafont Consultant Account writes:
--
-- The science fiction novel "David's Sling" (author's last name Stieger
-- or Steiger; I lent out my copy) contains a prominent discussion of a
-- very desirable piece of groupware, a mechanism for achieving consensus
-- of a large group by considering in an orderly manner all pertinent
-- points of view with machine assistance.
--
-- Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available
I have not read David Sling's, but it makes me think of Delphi. This
is something I first read "Lives of a Cell" (I think) by Lewis Thomas
in an essay of his "On Committees." I heard it figured prominently in
Shockwave Rider, but I don't remember learning much about it there.
Still, Bruner's profuse acknowledgements of Toffler made me wonder if
he of course got it from Toffler. Future Shock does indeed have some
obscure reference to it, which I haven't run down yet.
It's apparently a method for predicting the future by asking a bunch
of experts. This method was devised, what, 25 years ago? It sounds
like a perfect match for email, newsgroups, groupware, but was devised
long before any of this was even within shouting distance!
The goal of the method was to get the group of informed people to
converge in their prognostications. A Facilitator devised a
questionnaire and had each person fill it out and return it to him.
These were copied and distributed to all. Then a second round took
place where everyone answered the questionnaire again. Apparently,
after a small number of cycles, a fairly useful consensus often
emerged that subsequently proved to be largely on target.
I'm talking more than I know here. Sounds like some kind of Focus
Group? Interesting though.
J.R. Prohaska
Sun Microsystems, Mountain View, California (415) 336 2502
Domain: prohaska@sun.com
USnail: Box 9022, Stanford, CA 94305
lance@embassy.UUCP (Lance N. Antrim) (12/30/89)
From article <10211@zodiac.ADS.COM>, by xanthian@saturn.ads.com (Metafont Consultant Account): > > The science fiction novel "David's Sling" (author's last name Stieger > or Steiger; I lent out my copy) contains a prominent discussion of a > very desirable piece of groupware, a mechanism for achieving consensus > of a large group by considering in an orderly manner all pertinent > points of view with machine assistance. > > One of the sidelights resulting from this groupware example is that it > shows the need for a "minimalist" definition of exactly what > constitutes "groupware". In my own opinion, while telecommunications > and live video may be "nice to have", much more of interest to me > would be starting with groupware assistance for a meeting around a > common table. The organization and recall of concepts, arguments, and > alternatives for a group considering a complex question, or one > reconsidered after the lapse of a considerable amount of time, is a > task set amenable to machine assistance, and should preferable be > solved before the "bells and whistles" are added to the program of > work. > > Discussion? I have seen two examples that relate to the "minimalist" view as a strating point for groupware. David Straus, of Interaction Associates, and others in his firm are developing a Macintosh system that replaces the posterboard system for facilitating group discussions. The mac is operated by a prson at the back of the room who summarizes the discussion, complete with graphics if they are used by a discussant. The record is displayed on three screens: current discussion, many reduced screens showing the flow of discussions, and a screen that can display past notes that are referenced in the discussion. At the end of the day, or at breaks, the notes are printed out and distributed to the participants. The computers have a low profile once the participants get used to seeing the notes appear on the screens during the discussion, and they are actually less intrusive than having a person walking around the front of a room writing on the wall and tearing off sheets of paper while the participants are talking. The second example is the U of Arizona decision conference center. This is a much more hardware intensive system with PC's networked to support both individual (and team) efforts and inter-group sharing of information. Additional software provides a structure for developing agendas, setting priorities, identifying interests and decision criteria, and other steps that are needed whether or not a computer is used to support decision making. In some discussions about computer support for international negotiations, a major focus has been on the management of successive drafts of an agreement, access to past agreements and discussions that are relavent to the negotiations but which are not in the direct knowledge base of the negotiators, and access to related international law and treaties. Not rich in sophistication, but these simple tasks would be a big help (of course, that is a lot of textual data to enter into a system and to index in an appropriate way). In part, since I work with people who feel that they can get by without computer assistance, I favor the "minimalist" approach as a starting point. I think by starting with simple tools that facilitate current practices there will be rapid acceptance of computer supported groupware and then newer technologies can be introduced. -- Lance Antrim Project on Multilateral Negotiation ..!uunet!embassy!lance American Academy of Diplomacy ___________________________________________________________________________
levitt@saturn.ADS.COM (Tod Levitt) (01/01/90)
In article <129710@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> prohaska@sun.UUCP (J.R. Prohaska) writes: >... >-- very desirable piece of groupware, a mechanism for achieving consensus >-- of a large group by considering in an orderly manner all pertinent >-- points of view with machine assistance. > >I have not read David Sling's, but it makes me think of Delphi. >... >It's apparently a method for predicting the future by asking a bunch >of experts. This method was devised, what, 25 years ago? It sounds >like a perfect match for email, newsgroups, groupware, but was devised >long before any of this was even within shouting distance! >... It's my understanding that the Delphi method of reaching consensus (for a group of humans) was developed by Professor Norman Dalkey, now at UCLA. It was not specifically aimed at "predicting the future". In fact, the research was funded, I believe, by DoD, for use in policy making.
newman@inco.UUCP (Bo Newman) (01/02/90)
I have been giving thought to a Delphi Server for a E-Mail system and would be VERY INTERESTED in discussing same with others. For those not familiar with the Delphi method, it is a method of reaching a quantitative evaluation of subjective opinions be the use or reiterative rankings by a set of subject experts. (Or so I remember) For a more complete discussion of the Dephi method, the RAND Corp did a write up on it quite a few years ago (I believe the method may have been developed by the RAND Corp.). PLEASE, if you have interest in this subject area, POST not E-mail your comments. The interactive discussion and value added by the group is greatly delayed by the one-reply one-reader one-reply one-reader . . . paradigm. (I knew I could get that word in some where!) =================================================================== :Bo Newman newman@inco.uu.net uunet!inco!newman : :McDonnell Douglas Electronics Systems Company (MDESC-WDC) : :McLean Virginia : :Voice (703) 883-3968 : :Fax USA (703) 883-3889 : ------------------------------------------------------------------- : ALL STANDARD, NONSTANDARD, and POSSIBLE DISCLAIMERS APPLY : ===================================================================
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (With friends like these, who needs hallucinations) Meyer) (01/03/90)
In article <129710@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> prohaska@sun.UUCP (J.R. Prohaska) writes: >-- very desirable piece of groupware, a mechanism for achieving consensus >-- of a large group by considering in an orderly manner all pertinent >-- points of view with machine assistance. Actually, that scene from David's Sling reminded me of descriptions the CoLAB project at Xerox PARC. I had assumed that what's being called GroupWare was something similar to that: simultaneous, shared access to a hypertext structure with a WYSIWES (What You See Is What Everyone Sees) component. I've since been told that what's currently being sold as "groupware" more resembles RCS or SCCS on Unix. Could someone (several someones, probably) post descriptions of some of the currently available "groupware"? Thanx, <mike -- The weather is here, I wish you were beautiful. Mike Meyer My thoughts aren't too clear, but don't run away. mwm@berkeley.edu My girlfriend's a bore, my job is too dutiful. ucbvax!mwm Hell nobody's perfect, would you like to play? mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) (01/03/90)
Summary: I believe that we should aim, in designing groupware, to assist communication between people, not just for 'better, faster decisions'. I do not hold with the idea that computers support decision making by storing all the 'pertinent' topics for consideration by people. Phrases like "achieving consensus by considering all pertinent points of view" imply to me a nice rational, objective, decision making process. I dont believe that such things can exist. I also dont believe that they should. Consider the work of Terry Windograd and Fernandes Flores in their book 'Understanding Computers and Cognition'. In this work, Winograd and Flores argue that there is no objective world which can be measured. Rather, that the world is created through the language which we use to communicate. When people examine the world, they do so through a filter of their own experience. We find simplifications of the world in our language, it is easy to believe that these simplifications are real. Take for example the notions of truth and falsehood. It is easy to believe that a statement is either true or false. They are not, of course; consider self-reference: "This statement is false" or nonsense: "The grunky bling on the pimple grog". How can we measure the validity of statements like this? When we try to cast them into inappropriate moulds it is not surprising that we have problems. It is easy on reflection to beware of statements like the self referential one above, but when we stumble on it in other contexts we find it very difficult to step back and see it for what it really is. Simple statements like: "Ice exists naturally" seem to be quite clear yet they stand in a background which controls their interpretation. Try that statement on eskimos, who have no single word meaning 'frozen water'. Try it on people who work with large amounts of 'dry ice' and who may have a different default interpretation of what 'ice' is. Many democratic systems use a questionnaire or a set of weights which a number of people respond to. These systems ignore the background in which the questions were written. We will see claims that getting people to fill out these questionnaires does tend to achieve consensus. Consensus is important not because it shows that people agree but because it makes people believe they agree. I would argue that the only reason that a consensus is found is because people responding are willing to shift their viewpoint to that dictated by the stream of questions. In democratic countries, people are often quite happy to believe that the ability to vote for their leader every few years gives them freedom and control. That's good; it keeps the people happy. We should be very careful when building systems which 'support group decision making' because many of these systems may hide their biases too well. Just as it is hard to step back from the statement: "This statement is false" it is incredibly difficult to step back from a questionnaire and see what is happening to your opinions. How do we argue with software which, after much crunching and calculating, says: "Well you all agree, based on the results of the questionnaire that we will do X." If X is 'sell, sell, sell' and we are in the share market and everyone uses the same program the effect could be interesting. Of course, that would never happen. Martin Leadbeater E-mail: Martin.Leadbeater@edgar.sait.edu.au Academic Computing Service SA Institute of Technology Phone: +61 8 3433435 The Levels, SA, 5095, Australia Fax: +61 8 3496939
reggie@dinsdale.nm.paradyne.com (George W. Leach) (01/03/90)
In article <6267@inco.UUCP> newman@inco.UUCP (Bo Newman) writes: >I have been giving thought to a Delphi Server for a E-Mail system and >would be VERY INTERESTED in discussing same with others. Delphi has been utilized with computerized conferencing systems. >For those not familiar with the Delphi method, it is a method of reaching >a quantitative evaluation of subjective opinions be the use or reiterative >rankings by a set of subject experts. (Or so I remember) More or less..... >For a more complete discussion of the Dephi method, the RAND Corp did a >write up on it quite a few years ago (I believe the method may have been >developed by the RAND Corp.). I don't know who is responsible for developing the Delphi method, but a book has been written on the subject: H. Linstone, and M. Turoff, The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975. According to the following reference, the first computerized conferencing system that was built in 1970 implemented a Delphi communication structure. Murray Turoff, and Starr Roxanne Hiltz Computer Support for Group Versus Individual Decisions, IEEE Transactions on Communications, COM-30(1), January 1982, pp. 82-91. George W. Leach AT&T Paradyne (uunet|att)!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-133 Phone: 1-813-530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 FAX: 1-813-530-8224 Largo, FL 34649-2826 USA
bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Brad Sherman) (01/04/90)
To see how well the Delphi method works you might try: Computers in the 1980s [by] Rein Turn. New York, Columbia University Press, 1974. Which attempts to predict the technological progress of computers through the 80's. Note its publication date. I have not seen this book since about 1981, so I would be interested in a short review if anyone's up to it. --- brad sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)
UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) (01/04/90)
In article <6894@pdn.paradyne.com>, reggie@dinsdale.nm.paradyne.com (George W. Leach) says: > > According to the following reference, the first computerized conferencing >system that was built in 1970 implemented a Delphi communication structure. > > > Murray Turoff, and Starr Roxanne Hiltz > Computer Support for Group Versus Individual Decisions, > IEEE Transactions on Communications, COM-30(1), > January 1982, pp. 82-91. > But like a lot of good work, this was before its time. Now that real discussions take place distributed in time and space over these nets, it is time for a Delphi-like mechanism to evolve, bloating rn even more 8-) lee
drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) (01/06/90)
prohaska%lapis@Sun.COM (J.R. Prohaska) writes: >I have not read David Sling's, but it makes me think of Delphi... >The goal of the method was to get the group of informed people to >converge in their prognostications. A Facilitator devised a >questionnaire and had each person fill it out and return it to him. >These were copied and distributed to all. Then a second round took >place where everyone answered the questionnaire again. Apparently, >after a small number of cycles, a fairly useful consensus often >emerged that subsequently proved to be largely on target. How does this avoid turning into Groupthink? Didn't David Halberstam write a book called something like "The Best and the Brightest" about how the US Vietnam experience was a result of "groupthink"? David Dick Software Innovations, Inc [the Software Moving Company(sm)] drd@siia.mv.com
pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) (01/06/90)
In article <10245@zodiac.ADS.COM> levitt@saturn.ADS.COM (Tod Levitt) writes: >It's my understanding that the Delphi method of reaching consensus (for a >group of humans) was developed by Professor Norman Dalkey, now at UCLA. It >was not specifically aimed at "predicting the future". In fact, the research >was funded, I believe, by DoD, for use in policy making. Specifically, Professor Dalkey was codeveloper of Delphi while a senior mathematician at the Rand Corporation. Still an active researcher in 1990, he received his Ph.D. from UCLA in 1942! -- Brad
lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) (01/09/90)
In article <5401@levels.sait.edu.au> CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) writes: >book 'Understanding Computers and Cognition'. In this work, Winograd >and Flores argue that there is no objective world which can be measured. >Rather, that the world is created through the language which we use to >communicate. Did they *really* say this? If so, it would be an example of relativism of the worst sort. I thought better of T. Winograd. It reminds me of Edward Abbey's "Test". If someone says they are a solopsist, throw a brick at their head. It they duck, they are a liar. Is the brick "created through the language which we use to communicate"? Or is it a real, objective, brick? Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9, UUCP ames!lamaster NASA Ames Research Center ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov Moffett Field, CA 94035 Phone: (415)694-6117
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (01/11/90)
In article <40068@ames.arc.nasa.gov> lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) writes: |In article <5401@levels.sait.edu.au> CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) writes: | |>book 'Understanding Computers and Cognition'. In this work, Winograd |>and Flores argue that there is no objective world which can be measured. |>Rather, that the world is created through the language which we use to |>communicate. | |Did they *really* say this? If so, it would be an example of relativism of |the worst sort. I thought better of T. Winograd. It reminds me of Edward |Abbey's "Test". If someone says they are a solopsist, throw a brick at |their head. It they duck, they are a liar. Is the brick "created through |the language which we use to communicate"? Or is it a real, objective, brick? Ho, ho, this is droll. If someone says they are an objectivist, throw a brick at their head. If they duck, ignore them. -- \\\\ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \66/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/v/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _< \_ "Head-slam me, Jesus, on the turnbuckle of life" - Godzibo
johnsonr@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Rod Johnson) (01/12/90)
In article <40068@ames.arc.nasa.gov> lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) writes: >In article <5401@levels.sait.edu.au> CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) writes: > >>book 'Understanding Computers and Cognition'. In this work, Winograd >>and Flores argue that there is no objective world which can be measured. >>Rather, that the world is created through the language which we use to >>communicate. > >Did they *really* say this? If so, it would be an example of relativism of >the worst sort. I thought better of T. Winograd. It reminds me of Edward >Abbey's "Test". If someone says they are a solopsist, throw a brick at >their head. It they duck, they are a liar. Is the brick "created through >the language which we use to communicate"? Or is it a real, objective, brick? Sigh. It drives me mildly crazy when amateur philosophers sling around terms like "relativism," as if they were some sort of pejorative, in lieu of an argument against the position cited. Hugh, there's more to the world then bricks. Ideas, social relations, practices, categories, abstractions like `justice', are all part of the world that human beings talk about and interact with every day. As Wittgenstein said, the world is all that is the case. The world is not just an assemblage of mute globs of matter--it's matter (and more than matter) as understood, as classified, as experienced; Husserl's "life-world," if you will. Wiser men than you or I have called attention to how critical the role of language is in the construction of that life-world. Bricks, beside the fact that they are a product of culture, which is mediated by language, are comprise a category that is delineated through language. The question of solipsism is simply an irrelevancy in this debate, as is what you appear to be arguing against, which is idealism. If by "relativism" you mean linguistic relativity as propounded by von Humboldt, Sapir and Whorf, among others, well, there are many varieties of it, not all of which are at all incompatible with your seemingly realist viewpoint. The position that the world is constructed through language has nothing to say about whether bricks are real or not--but you have to understand the position before you can assess that. Read Winograd before you dump on him--he may live up to your expectations after all. (In fairness, I must say that the original poster doesn't give the best summary of the phenomenological position that Winograd and Flores are espousing. To say "there is no objective world" is overly strong and overly simple, I think.) (straying from groupware--followups elsewhere?) -- Rod Johnson Internet: rcj@um.cc.umich.edu U Michigan Linguistics (or: johnsonr@thor.acc.stolaf.edu) (in exile in Minnesota) Phone: (507) 645 9804 *** no connection with St. Olaf except as a grateful guest ***
CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) (01/12/90)
In article <40068@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) writes: > Did they *really* say this? If so, it would be an example of relativism of > the worst sort. I thought better of T. Winograd. It reminds me of Edward >[...] in response to my earlier comment: >>[...] In this work, Winograd >>and Flores argue that there is no objective world which can be measured. >>Rather, that the world is created through the language which we use to >>communicate. The short answer: Yes. In my edition it is on page 11: "This synthesis is central to our interpretation of computer technology in the second part of the book. It leads us to the conclusion that we create our world through language, an observation that has important consequences for design." [copied without permission] Let me explain my interpretation, in response to Hugh LaMaster's subsequent brick question: >[...] Edward >Abbey's "Test". If someone says they are a solopsist, throw a brick at >their head. It they duck, they are a liar. Is the brick "created through >the language which we use to communicate"? Or is it a real, objective, >brick? Sure bricks are physical things and they hurt when they hit your head. Is the brick in Abbey's test 'real' and 'objective'? That's harder; I see the test as the communication of an idea. The fact that you and I probably have a similar 'understanding' of what a 'brick' is gives us a similar 'understanding' of the statement. The fact that we assume that the person on the receiving end is not facing the wrong way---or blind---helps too. The statement contains a large number of implications. For example; there are implications that the reciever knows the object is aimed at them, that they will be affected by this knowledge, that the affect will be to induce them to duck, that they are not lying down or strapped to a wall and so on. You and I don't have to worry about such implications, they emerge only when there is some kind of breakdown. How many times have you heard statements like: "It's a joke, Henry. You see, if...". These statements are used to help resolve breakdowns. Maybe my interpretation of brick comes more from the statement 'drop a brick', than from my knowledge of building materials. At the same time, I don't know what a 'Solipsism' is but I know that Abbey spent a lot of time somewhere where people duck (bow) all the time, especially when embarrassed by indescreet remarks. Thus, I can form an understanding of the statement (even if it sounds a little wierd) and go merrily on my ('wrong') way. ['Drop a brick' means make an indiscreet remark] When expressed to a different culture, it may not be a 'brick' which is thrown but a 'stick' which is thrust. It doesn't change the test changing the brick to a stick but I'd like to see someone change a building brick to a long, thin piece of wood. I feel that awareness of some of these issues of interpretation will be fundamental to the design of effective distributed groupware. Maybe they lend support to the idea of a 'minimal' use of technology, where we still bring people to the same place. My feeling, however, is that there are a lot of methods of supporting 'one-place' group work which do not rely on any technology. What I want is a way of working with you without having to fly to the states but I want to see the breakdowns when they happen, not to have them obscured by the system. Martin Leadbeater E-mail: Martin.Leadbeater@edgar.sait.edu.au Academic Computing Service SA Institute of Technology Phone: +61 8 3433435 The Levels, SA, 5095, Australia Fax: +61 8 3496939
lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) (01/12/90)
In article <10518@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> rcj@um.cc.umich.edu (R o d Johnson) writes: >Sigh. It drives me mildly crazy when amateur philosophers sling >around terms like "relativism," as if they were some sort of >pejorative, in lieu of an argument against the position cited. And it drives me crazy when amateur philosophers claim that there is no objective reality. >(straying from groupware--followups elsewhere?) Agreed. I apologize for not ignoring the previous posting. I will say no more on this subject. ************************************************************************** Has anyone written a good X Window System implementation of something like Delphi? It would seem to be ideal. Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9, UUCP ames!lamaster NASA Ames Research Center ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov Moffett Field, CA 94035 Phone: (415)694-6117
lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) (01/17/90)
In article <6223@levels.sait.edu.au> CCML@levels.sait.edu.au (Martin) writes: > >The short answer: Yes. In my edition it is on page 11: "This synthesis is >central to our interpretation of computer technology in the second part of >the book. It leads us to the conclusion that we create our world through >language, an observation that has important consequences for design." I interpret this statement to mean the following: "Language has an effect on perception." I see nothing in it which states that there is no objective reality, merely that language affects our perception of that reality. No one denies that, for example, not being color blind affects one's perception of "color". On the other hand, I question how much the "Whorf effect" really matters. It is interesting to note that linguists are divided. The argument against the Whorf effect seems to be that a good translation can be made from any known language to any other, and back again, although the text may be expanded, and the form is destroyed (in e.g. poetry, where form is important). >Maybe my interpretation of brick comes more from the statement >'drop a brick', than from my knowledge of building materials. At I don't like this as an example of what you mean, because 'drop a brick' is merely a (compound) word which one of us knows and the other doesn't. Perhaps there is another example which works better. >wierd) and go merrily on my ('wrong') way. ['Drop a brick' means make >an indiscreet remark] >I feel that awareness of some of these issues of interpretation will be >fundamental to the design of effective distributed groupware. Maybe they I don't see it as fundamental to groupware, per se, any more than it is a problem for the telephone. Sure, misunderstandings arise, but the telephone is still a useful tool, I think ... I'm not sure how geographic distribution makes a difference. You can easily find people with quite different cultural and linguistic backgrounds in the same office. But, I agree that tools that would further understanding, as well as communication, would be greatly appreciated. Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9, UUCP ames!lamaster NASA Ames Research Center ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov Moffett Field, CA 94035 Phone: (415)694-6117