Groupware

1. Groupware Ms. G's notes for KMSMarch 29, 2005

2. KMS -- Groupware Introduction • What is groupware? • software for group use • hard to differentiate from intranets (anymore) • tends to integrate social & emotional aspects • When/why is it used? • news, notification, broadcast • help systems • instant contact • work groups, physical networks • special interests, communities of practice • How is it KM? • because people get more info when/where they need it • the more they share/contribute, the more they get • What is the state of the art? • "CSCW“, P2P?, collective informal efforts • popular commercial and free/share/OSS apps

3. KMS -- Groupware What Groupware Functionality do Users Really Use? [Appelt 2001] • BSCW (Basic Support for Cooperative Work) • Web based groupware system • Central metaphor: shared workspace • Contents represented as information objects in folders • 150 features, incl utilities: search, format conversion, version mgmt, language support, event services • analysis of usage, based on logfile (smart!) • Noone used all functions • Mostly browse & read (as expected)

4. Popular Operations 11.4% Getting meta-information on objects 11.2% Creation (upload) of documents 7.6% Reading information about events 5.7% Creation of folders 5.3% Confirmation of events 5.1% Modification of personal preferences 4.7% Invitation of users to workspaces 4.4% Modification of meta-information 3.8% Creation of discussions or notes 3.8% Display of sub-folders or threads Popular Operation Categories 24.7% Creation of information 12.4% Modification of information 12.3% Presentation of information 13.4% Awareness features 12.3% Reading information on objects 4.7% Moving and deleting objects 8.2% Access rights features 1.5% Searching 1.6% Personal information 0.6% Meeting objects 2.8% Java applets 5.1% Other features KMS -- Groupware What Groupware Functionality do Users Really Use? (cont.)

5. Group of operations Frequent users Other users KMS -- Groupware 1 Creation of information 23.1% 25.6% 2 Modification of information 15.1% 11.0% 3 Presentation of information 8.6% 14.2% 4 Awareness features 17.3% 11.6% 5 Reading of information about objects 11.3% 12.9% 6 Moving and deleting objects 4.8% 4.7% 7 Access rights features 7.4% 8.7% 8 Searching 2.3% 1.1% 9 Personal information 0.9% 2.0% 10 Operations related to meeting objects 0.5% 0.6% 11 Java applets 2.7% 2.9% 12 Other features 5.6% 4.9% What Groupware Functionality do Users Really Use? (cont.)

6. KMS -- Groupware The Future of Knowledge Management [Davenport 1995] • This reading not so insightful • Has it come true? • Well, the things that it said would NOT happen, did not happen, • But did Lotus Notes merge with the WWW? • err, I don't THINK so • Is KMS penetrating management? • Are people evaluated on it? • Is it part of anyone's corporate economics? • other predictions related to: • creating knowledge • extracting knowledge rewards • organizing knowledge • transferring knowledge

7. KMS -- Groupware Successful Knowledge Management Projects [Davenport et al 1998] • “If the knowledge vs. information distinction is seen as a continuum instead of a dichotomy, then projects that focus on structured knowledge deal with the middle of the continuum.” • …which is about where we are • General objectives of KM projects surveyed: • Create knowledge repositories. • Improve knowledge access. • Enhance knowledge environment. • Manage knowledge as an asset.

8. KMS -- Groupware Successful Knowledge Management Projects (cont.) • How to measure "success"? • growth in resources devoted to KM • growth in volume of content & use • survival not dependent on key individuals • some evidence of financial return

9. KMS -- Groupware Successful Knowledge Management Projects (cont.) • 8 key factors: • link to economic importance or industry value • technical and organizational infrastructure • standard, flexible knowledge structure • knowledge-friendly culture • clear purpose and language • change in motivational practices • multiple channels for knowledge transfer • senior management support • Finally: • timing matters • don't forget: knowledge = power! • "KM is neither panacea nor bromide"

10. KMS -- Groupware IM [Nardi 2000] "informal lightweight communication“ • interaction = info exchange • outeraction = meta-info, social exchange "This argues strongly for the integration of text-based messaging into technologies such as media spaces which aim to support informal communication for people collaborating at distance. With some exceptions, most media spaces do not have integrated text-messaging."

11. KMS -- Groupware Butterfly [VanDyke 1999] • addresses the problem of 10,000+ IRC channels • applicable to other group media • effectively a google or Ask jeeves search? • uses IRC interface • Unsolved problem: secret channels • that pesky KM "knowledge hoarder" problem

12. KMS -- Groupware Tools for Navigating [Smith 2002] • "Ideally, Usenet members would make efficient use of bandwidth, • participating actively but judiciously in newsgroups, • ensuring their comments are posted only to relevant newsgroups, and • abiding by the local norms and culture that govern decorum.” • but problems lead to poor “signal-to-noise ratio” • so, “mutual awareness of other participants’ histories and relationships is critical to a cooperative outcome” • Enter: Netscan project (Micro$oft) • social accounting metrics for social cyberspaces • metadata on newsgroup activity & behavior • interesting: thread tracker (visualization) http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/Static/Default.asp?

13. KMS -- Groupware Answer Garden [Ackerman 1990] • type of HCI or CSCW system • to improve organizational memory • organically-grown or self-assembling help desk • branching network of diagnostic questions • combines self-help with expert-at-hand • it sounds cool • Their conclusion: "The Answer Garden is not a radically new kind of system. We believe it shows, however, how a relatively simple combination of well-known concepts can provide a surprisingly powerful platform for a new kind of cooperative work application. As information technology becomes more pervasive, we believe that tools like this--for capturing and exploiting organizational knowledge that was previously stored only informally or not at all--will become increasingly important.“ • ...seems to have been borne out

14. KMS -- Groupware Answer Garden (cont.) • Answer Garden differs from: • standard information retrieval systems • computer-mediated communications systems • consulting systems using expert system technology • other forms of organizational memory • In field studies of Answer Garden’s use: • "users were satisfied as long as they got an accurate solution quickly” • "Answer Garden could work in principle.“ • "issues were uncovered that are critical to the success of similar memory or help systems:“ • "Tying the social network into the system in a more natural manner.“ • "Providing for the contextualization of answers, thus providing for the user’s understanding of an answer.“ • "To obtain answers, the cost of authoring must be minimized."

15. KMS -- Groupware ...enter...Answer Garden 2 [Ackerman 1996] • “Within an organization or community, individuals’ information seeking requires finding the right part of the collective memory.” • AG2 has a more-complex, but modular, architecture • Back end: Cafe ConstructionKit (CafeCK) • "can be viewed either as a collective memory system or as a collaborative help system.“ • Front end: Collaborative Refinery (Co-Refinery) • "distillate" ~= FAQ • “Returning to poor Fred’s problem, all he wants is help to solve his computer questions…[but] Fred’s problem... becomes one of augmenting the collective memory in such a way that it benefits Fred as well as all of the social collectivities of which he is a part.”

16. KMS -- Groupware From Answer Garden to Answer Jungle [odd find: Dron, J., Mitchell, R. & Siviter, P. 1998, 'From Answer Garden to Answer Jungle,' Education and Training, vol. 40, no. 8.] • “The Answer Garden [metaphor, not software] was the basic model chosen for the experiment conducted here with one major variation--I explicitly excluded any experts, particularly myself. By so doing I sought to pull the learning resource up by its own bootstraps, avoiding ‘skyhooks’ and substituting 'cranes'... In effect, the intention was to produce an Answer Jungle (wild and self-organising) rather than an Answer Garden.” • was really just a newsgroup, but ALL newbies • mixed value, but some evolution apparent

17. KMS -- Groupware YouServ P2P web publishing (Frontpage-meets-Napster) • Good because: • non-proprietary • simple, easy (so they say) • scalable (in theory) • Bad maybe because: • its P2P so "they" will squash it regardless • other usual P2P issues, mostly network traffic • its IBM--does it depend on IBM infrastructure? http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/people/bayardo/userv/uservfaq.html http://bayardo.youserv.net/

18. KMS -- Groupware JXTA • sounds really cool • like P2P netMeeting [and more] • really just a set of protocols • thanks to Bill Joy & c. @ Sun, now OSS http://www.jxta.org/

19. KMS -- Groupware My Fave: PHP Groupware • multi-user groupware suite, written in PHP • ~ 50 web-based applications • Calendar • Addressbook • Projects manager, • Todo List • Notes • Email • Newsgroup • Headlines Reader • Filemanager • Supports user preferences, themes, permissions, multi-language, groups http://www.phpgroupware.org/ http://phpgroupware.org/references uk2.TRYphpGroupWare.org

20. KMS -- Groupware Closing: Questions and Issues • What are core drivers and competencies for CSCW? (wouldn't it be nice if we could just get these down?) • basic needs? basic tools? • basic behaviors? typical issues? • Expertise is a big deal …yet many IT tools seem to be trying to supplant it. • Shows the $$ value of K? • Technology/format turnover remains problem • All those knowledge repositories get lost (EG UseNet) • Different systems in every company, different policies • There is still no basic universal messaging better than email. • Even perfect KM systems cannot resolve power struggles • …so new systems will always evolve? • Once the BORG takes over the universe, will it be happy with itself?