🚀 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."

In article <1998@east.East.Sun.COM> db@witzend.East.Sun.COM (David Brownell) writes:
   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?

I can say, based on my five years of working with groupware theory and
groupware systems that "must" is the correct answer.  The street has its own
uses for technology, and so does every user out there.

We cannot avoid the truth that every piece of software comes with its own
preferred methodology (implicit or explicit) and that methodology will
change the way users do work.

What's different about groupware is that it propagates the changes of/by one
user across to others.  If I use my Excel spreadsheet in one particular way,
that likely won't impact you.  If I use my news-posting software, that
likely will.  For example, I tend to hand-edit Subject: lines to make my
topics clearer.  I wish more people did, but I've learned to be careful with
the 'k' key lest I miss an interesting comment by a person who simply forgot
tochange the subject or References: line.

   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.

Good luck, my friend.  Nothing will fail faster than a groupware system
which fails to recognize existing social and power relationships.  Look at
the paucity of group calendars, for example.  There's nothing new in that
technology - hasn't been for a while.  Why doesn't every PC in corporate
America have one?  (Hint: if your answer has to do with technology, you're
missing the point.)

Another question: how many executives at or near VP level in your company
use email?  I can't even get my division manager to use it.

   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!

I agree with you in principle, but reality intrudes again.  We'd like to
support how people work, but the way they work is non-electronic (or they
wouldn't need our tools in the first place).  Therefore, by introducing an
electronic system, we're going to be disrupting the pattern of work.

(Nevertheless, you'll never catch me implementing a performance-monitoring
system.  There are things that just grate too much.)

--
--Alan Wexelblat
Bull Worldwide Information Systems	internet: wex@pws.bull.com
phone: (508) 671-7485			Usenet: spdcc.com!know!wex
  The taxes of every American west of the Mississippi are used to pay off
  the interest on the national debt.

In article <WEX.90Jun5133456@sitting.pws.bull.com>
	wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes:
> In article <1998@east.East.Sun.COM>
>	db@witzend.East.Sun.COM (David Brownell) writes:

>    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.
> 
> Good luck, my friend.  Nothing will fail faster than a groupware system
> which fails to recognize existing social and power relationships.

You deleted the explanatory paragraph here -- I pointed out that new
agendas can only start succeeding AFTER the existing ones get addressed.
(There IS the potential for a revolution ... but I'm not fomenting that
kind of agenda now!  Most organizations don't need them.)

We do agree on that point:  you can't successfully sell software to a
group, if using it means the group must change its nature!

I was philosophising on the next stage of development ... which seems
to peek its nose through periodically.

> Another question: how many executives at or near VP level in your company
> use email?  I can't even get my division manager to use it.

Well, even though you're only about 1 mile away, it looks like your
company culture is radically different from mine!  :-)  Illustrating
the key point rather well:  different organizations require different
software.

Seriously, within Sun (an extreme of the kind of "resource rich"
environment I referred to) everyone up to the President uses email.
VPs frequently get so much that an administrator will filter it for
them (oh, for Object Lens!), but do send and read mail themselves.
This was true of most of the companies I've worked for.

But of course, one reason that EMAIL is effective is because it CAN
reflect the various various power structures very easily.

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."