🚀 go-pugleaf

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