🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <0XX-gx+@engin.umich.edu>, wjabi@libra.arch.umich.edu writes...
> 
>On the one hand you say that groupware can rehumanize the process by
>bringing in the user, but then you say that users will input their
>opinions 'programmatically' ... which are then collected and organized
>and presented to the designer in a useful form. That sounds like you
>are putting a wall (the groupware system) between the users and the
>designers. You have to remember that the true users of architecture
>spaces are different from the clients who pay the architects. If you
>really want to do participatory design, then you need to devise
>simple ways (such as board games and simulations) in order to bring
>the design to the users' world. To have them input stuff into computers
>or to 'average' their opinions through statistical methods is just
>as remote and dehumanizing as not involving them at all.
> 
    I don't agree this is necessarily true.

    1. Board games and simulations put walls up as well.  But they
    sometimes work as they are process enhancers.  Well designed groupware
    use appropriately by a good facilitator is the same sort of thing.

    2. I realize the paying clients and the users are not the same.  My
    intention is to get the real users involved.

    3. 'averaging' is just one way of reaching a decision.  Well designed
    groupware might allow for all sorts of consensus building activities.

>Groupware, as you pointed out, has the potential of solving
>this problem, but I see it more from a tool perspective:
>
    Yes, groupware on one level is a tool.  Try to see it as an enabling
    process though.

>On the social side, I'm not so sure about groupware. I saw meetings
>that use groupware systems (I actually participated in one). They
>tend to be very 'anti-social', formal... somehow artificial.
>They also seemed like an overkill in some instances. Instead of
>discussing the issue verbally, we wrote down five reasons for and
>against a certain issue. Why not just hammer it out the good ol' way!!

    Don't be too hasty to judge.  You saw one system used (I am guessing.) 
    It likely was not optimized for collecting architectural data.  I have
    no idea how good the system was, how good the facilitator was, and how
    aligned the process was with the problem at hand.

    Sometimes it makes more sense to "hammer it out the good ol' way." 
    Sometimes doing so leaves the paying client with too much power and
    disenfranchises the user class.  Groupware in any venue is not a
    panacea.  It is simply a set of tools and a process which if used at
    the right time and used properly can enhance the communication (and
    sometimes decision making) process.

===========================================================================
daniel david mittleman     -     danny@arizona.edu     -     (602) 621-2932