1 / 51

Office Automation & Intranets

Office Automation & Intranets. BUSS 909. Lecture 3 Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) & Groupware. Notices 1. New Tut Monday 3:30-4:30 MicroLabs 2 effective next week- those who are not yet in a tutorial need to fill in the tutorial sheet being circulated

baird
Download Presentation

Office Automation & Intranets

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Office Automation & Intranets BUSS 909 Lecture 3 Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) & Groupware

  2. Notices 1 • New Tut Monday 3:30-4:30 MicroLabs 2 • effective next week- those who are not yet in a tutorial need to fill in the tutorial sheet being circulated • notes will be on the Intranet so that you can see what this tutorial is about • use your assignment topic as a means for improving your search skills

  3. Notices 3 • Must provide me with your topic for Assignment 1- now • a list is being circulated- duplicate topics will be changed • in this tutorial we will consider research techniques using search engines and also describe how they work

  4. Agenda • Define CSCW; distinguishing it from traditional OA; Identifying some metaphors which drive the research • Bannon et al (1988) Reading #15; • Nunamaker et al (1991) reading #17 • Distinction between CSCW in Europe and Groupware in the USA • Grudin (1991) Reading #16

  5. CSCW Rationale & DefinitionBannon et al (1988) Reading #15

  6. CSCW Rationale & Definition Defining Cooperative Work • cooperative work • intra- and inter-organisational, or even outside of formal organisations • may even include non-hierarchical, non-specialist, relatively autonomous work • not really a separate field in IS, more a shift in IS theoretical perspective or worldview (Weltanschauuung) away from automation (as in OA) and towards group support

  7. CSCW Rationale & Definition Theoretical Reasons • deficiencies and errors in the rational model of organisations • the rational model of organisations is the theoretical foundation of most Management Information Systems (MIS) and Decision Support Systems (DSS) • contributes to the large number of IS failures

  8. CSCW Rationale & Definition Critique of Rational Orgs. Model • realisation that the creation and use of IS technologies in organisations is political in nature (not exclusively technical): • sharing of information via DB involves negotiation between parties with entrenched interests (social emphasis) • awareness of non-objective issues in systems analysis, design, implemention and use (not physical science but design practice)

  9. CSCW Rationale & DefinitionWrong Emphasis in OA (1) • using rational model of organisations, IS developers see the office as: • a well-structured environment • workers carry out tasks using clearly defined procedures • IS developers the attempt to ‘automate the office’ by recreating existing or new procedures

  10. CSCW Rationale & Definition Wrong Emphasis in OA (2) • IS designers model office work by using information-flow diagrams • unfortunately these techniques do not capture much of what goes on in offices • replacing people with systems does not work as intended- need to shift to supporting office work

  11. CSCW Rationale & Definition Understanding Office Environments (1) • new view is that offices are social communities where work is accomplished through social interactions of office members • the social nature of office work, previously overlooked and misunderstood, has been revealed using ethnographic studies of office environments

  12. CSCW Rationale & Definition Understanding Office Environments (2) • these new studies show the central role of human communication: • especially in synchronising work activities • jointly determining exemptions • on-going, sustaining mutual interaction to enable behaviour of workers to be mutually understandable • new studies employ sociology, anthropology and ethnography

  13. CSCW Rationale & Definition Improved Coordination in Offices • close coupling of what were separate systems requires good computerized cooperation and control systems • management has become very interested in extending computer coordination into non-traditional types of systems (eg. e-mail etc) • this entails some risks- eg. The Coordinator, and gIBIS systems

  14. CSCW Rationale & Definition Technological Advances • leverage off new technologies (eg. PC based workstations and networks) • provision of better application software • extension of ‘shrinkwrapped software’with powerful, although often proprietary, scripting langauges eg. Visual Basic for Applications or VBA

  15. CSCW Rationale & Definition Human/Computer Interaction • significant increase in HCI activity • attempts made to extend beyond the human-machine dyad to look at human-computer-human interactions • new, but still undeveloped, theoretical extensions to group interfaces, organisational interfaces, software ergonomics, social ergonomics

  16. Defining Cooperative WorkSome Doubts (1) • CSCW and Group work sounds so reasonable- but a number of researchers have expressed doubts about the concept • Bannon et al (1988) believe that uneasiness with this concept is due to the assumption that: • groups have shared goals • does not recognise the socio-political nature of workplaces

  17. Defining Cooperative WorkSome Doubts (2) • even if we accept the need for socio-political approaches to organisation- how can this theory be developed • IS researchers don’t have the background in these areas, and social scientists don’t have the background in IS- need hybrid researchers

  18. CSCW -vs- GroupwareGrudin (1991) Reading #16

  19. CSCW -vs- Groupware • some of the difficulties IS academics have in being able to accept CSCW, are based on the fact that the North American version of it- Groupware- looks similar to what is going on at the moment • historically CSCW predates Groupware

  20. CSCW -vs- Groupware • CSCW is based research into organisational and social aspects of IT/IS • the difference is that Europe has developed theorised approaches to work in organisations • North American researchers are much more interested in technical fetish to ask why should these ideas be developed

  21. CSCW -vs- Groupware • CSCW has its roots historically in the socio-technical movements of the 1960s and 1970s and the Scandinavian work redesign projects of the 1970s and 1980s • much of this work started being more widely known in North America during the 1980s by Rob Kling (a well respected North American IS researcher)

  22. CSCW -vs- Groupware • European research was interested in internal, in-house developments- systems to address organisational needs • North American research should also be interested in this- as most IS development is done in that part of the world

  23. CSCW -vs- Groupware • instead the development of Groupware in USA, has been geared around off-the-shelf software products, shrinkwrap software: • collaborative authorship systems • meeting management systems • electronic mail • much research motivated and funded by big software houses!

  24. CSCW -vs- Groupware • North American researchers view the Groupware push as incremental development of existing software products - supporting groups • European researchers view CSCW as a way of developing entirely new approaches to explain how work is performed by groups of people in organisations

  25. Groupware Applications Nunamaker et al (1991) Reading #17

  26. Groupware Applications • “Almost every time there is a genuinely important decsison to be made in an organisation, a group is assigned to make it- or at least counsel and advise the individual who must make it”

  27. Groupware Applications • Nunamacker et al paper is rather typical of North American interest in CSCW/Groupware specifically and IS research in general • employs quantitatively informed research models • research modesl are confused with theoretical foundations • the general approach emphasises managerial uses

  28. Groupware Applications • whilst representing itself as being interested in organisations- you would expect sociological approaches- the tradition being drawn from is profoundly asocial- ie. organisational behaviour- psychological • attributes of individuals are being mapped uncritically onto organisations- eg. group memory

  29. Groupware Applications • where group processes are elluded to, psychological justifications are used to explain them • eg. domination becomes an individual (managers) attribute • folk psychological categories are elevated to the level of theoretical categories- information overload

  30. Groupware Applications • not surprising that in emphasising the kinds of technologies that they do • weakly justifications are used to argue that this is Groupware- in fact one of these systems was used to talk about Group Decision Support Systems (gDSS) • in North American IS there is little difference between these!

  31. CSCW Development MetaphorsBannon et al (1988) Reading #15

  32. CSCW Development MetaphorsTools, Medium & Panopticon • Bannon et al (1988) assert that there are three types of metaphors which influence the theory of CSCW: • computers as tools • computers as medium • computer as panopticon • we will describe each in turn- but we should be careful in using them...

  33. CSCW Development MetaphorsProblematic Categories • in principle these are dubious or problematic categories- as some research spans all three metaphors • even traditional approaches may employ one or more of these metaphors (eg. Bjorn-Andersen has used the panopticon metaphor to explain traditional IS development practices)

  34. CSCW Development MetaphorsTool Metaphor (Ehn and Colleagues) • Bannon et al (1988) assert that the so-called tool metaphor has been and is important in forming assumptions concerning CSCW • developed by Pelle Ehn (1987) and others from Denmark • based on considerable work redesign studies of changes to the print industry

  35. CSCW Development MetaphorsTool Metaphor (Ehn and Colleagues) • make systems that make the user in control of work processes • leads to the creation of systems that are like toolboxes • difficulty of this metaphor is that most tools are developed for single users! • the challenge is to make systems that are useful to groups of related users rather than single users

  36. CSCW Development MetaphorsCommunication Medium (Flores; Goldkuhl) • launguage as action perspectives view the computer as a communications medium • this has created interesting language centred approaches like ActionWorkflow and DEMO • focuses on how computers are used as a communications channel to support group interaction

  37. CSCW Development MetaphorsCommunication Medium (Flores; Goldkuhl) • this metaphor does not, help us understand how the computer distorts and changes our understanding of the world • despite the fact that it should- the problematic issue with the approach is that it is not a reflexive or critical one!

  38. CSCW Development MetaphorsComputers as Media (Andersen; Holmqvist) • related to the computers as communication media, is an approach which considers the computer as media • unlike the former approach this one does not use or suffer from the adoption of a transmission model of telecommunication (Shannon & Weaver)

  39. Traditional Media images/paintings video (linear) photography print media : Computer Media raster & vector graphics digital video (linear & non-linear) virtual reality hypertext : CSCW Development MetaphorsComputers as Media (Andersen; Holmqvist) • this related metaphor sees computer • applications as new kinds of media just like • other kinds of media we are familiar with:

  40. CSCW Development MetaphorsPanopticon (Foucault; Bentham) • 19th C. British architect Jeremy Bentham developed the design for a jail called the panopticon • the panopticon consisted of a ring of prison cells which had only one window which looked toward the centre of the structure

  41. CSCW Development MetaphorsPanopticon (Foucault; Bentham) • prisoners could not see each other, their view obstructed by the observation turret • the observation turret was covered with one-way mirrors so that while the prison guard could see the prisoner, the prsioner could not see the guard

  42. CSCW Development MetaphorsPanopticon (Foucault; Bentham) Central Turret, where the prison guard can watch each of the prison cells Prison cells The Central Turret is clad using one way mirrors The prison Guard can see prisoners, but prisoners can never see the guard All a prisoner sees is theire own reflection!

  43. CSCW Development MetaphorsPanopticon (Foucault; Bentham) • the clever(!) aspect of the design of Benthams prison is that a prisoner can never be sure if they are being observed by the prison guard • they cannot even be sure if the guard is present, • so the prisoner must assume that they are being observed every moment

  44. CSCW Development MetaphorsPanopticon (Foucault; Bentham) • Michel Foucault (French philosopher) used Bentham’s prison as a model of surveillence in western society • the enactment of discipline upon people is most successfulwhen they are forced to do it to themselves! • Bjorn-Andersen extended this idea of surveillence to understand IS in organisations

  45. CSCW Development MetaphorsPanopticon (Foucault; Bentham) • the organisation of work is increasingly interdependent on IS • the performance of each individual in an organisation becomes more ‘transparent’ • when one workers tasks depend on others, a great peer pressure can be exerted to accomplish the task- the same as the panopticon!

  46. CSCW Development MetaphorsPanopticon (Foucault; Bentham) • the result may be that the IS increases the transparency of work to the level where nothing much gets done • ironically the very systems designed to facilitate work, may do the exact opposite • users will be adverse to risk taking or refuse to experiment with learning different ways of performing workpractices

  47. CSCW Development MetaphorsPanopticon (Foucault; Bentham) • because CSCW systems are about group cooperation, they along with OA systems, may increase the risk of creating panopticons for workers in organisations • may also risk worker-managers relationships (prisoner-jailers) • this metaphor may be typical of many IS, not just CSCW systems

More Related