🚀 go-pugleaf

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."