🚀 go-pugleaf

Normally I wouldn't stick my neck into this discussion as I've not had
any experience with groupware (alas the poor unfortunate soul!) but in
the following message

wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes:
>I've been looking at this issue with an eye to implementing some groupware
>systems.  One of the things I've been finding in talking with potential
>users is that people really resent having something authoritarian-seeming
>made explicit in the computer, even when they deal with it in real life.
>
>For example, Subject 2 was observed to have this interaction:
>
>	Subject 2: "What are we doing about the XXX contract?"
>	Peer:  "I've set up a meeting at 2.  You'll get the agenda as soon
>		as the secretary finishes typing it up."
>	Subject 2: "OK."
>
>However, Subject 2 explicitly rejected the idea of having an electronic
>calendar system which would allow his Peer to schedule this meeting
>automatically, with him being able to remove it if he didn't like it.  That,
>he said, was "too authoritarian."
>
>Upon having it pointed out that the computer would simply be implementing
>the now-informal procedure, Subject 2 ventured the opinion that "having the
>interaction on the computer [made] it more authoritarian."
>
>Comments?
>
>--Alan Wexelblat

It strikes me that the computer program is mimicing the real world in a
too rigid manner.  Although at the mid management level and above there
may be a need for a peer or "other" to organize another's schedule book
I think that Personal Communications Theory might put things into
perspective.  Everyone knows about "private space", "personal space",
"group space", and "public space".  The groupware concept may be
infringing on a "computer private space" when it allows outsiders to
alter the appointment schedule.  I will try to use an analogy.

I have three appointment schedulers, a private one, an office one, and
a generic one.  My wife has permission to alter all three but she
better talk to me first about the private schedule prior to even
attempting to book something in it.  For the office scheduler, she can
make suggestions by penciling in appointments and for the public one we
both make appointments and then discuss how we will manage them.  BTW,
my wife is not my secretary nor in any way associated with my regular
office work.  My secretary only has permission to suggest alterations
to my office scheduler and has almost pure freedom for penciling in
pending appointments that are meta to the job but necessary.  I take
almost full control over my private scheduler, take much less interest
in the public one except to make sure that there are no conflicts with
either my private schedule of myu office schedule and lkewise with my
office scheduler.

Even though I work in a quite informal office and our subgroups and
subinteractions are even more informal I would tend to highly resent
anyone attempting to make an appointment for me in my private schedule
without approaching me first to find out if I am willing to entertain
the tenative appointment.  I permit collegues and our secretaries to
make such changes to my office scheduler with the caveat that if needs
be the tentative appointment changes to suit me and the group.  Just
about everyone in this institution tries to make appointments on my
public scheduler and when I can I fit things in, when I can't I
apologise for missing the function.

Any groupware product should respect these "spaces" because I believe
that as we grow with our computers they become an extension of
ourselves and should be treated as such.

Just my rather long winded $0.02 worth.

Kevin Crocker
kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca  -or- {alberta,...}!atha!kevinc
-- 
Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University 
UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc,attvcr}!atha!kevinc
Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA