Transcript of "What conditions are necessary for group support applications to be widely used in an organization?" April 6, 21:00 UTC (5pm EDT, 2pm PDT) Jonathan Grudin, University of California at Irvine Site: VMC @ Temple University The contents of this transcript may be further distributed if the complete transcript is kept together including this message. The contents many not be analyzed, quoted, reported or otherwise disseminated without the explicit permission of the VMC This conference was sponsored by the ISWorld Net Virtual Meeting Center (VMC) http://www.isworld.org/vmc The slides associated with this transcript are the full record of this conference. The slides are available from the VMC web site. Participants Jonathan Grudin, Bellevue, Washington USA Paul Weinberg, USA Munir Mandviwalla, Philadelphia, USA Ken Walsh, USA Lewis Hassell, USA Alec Morton, UK Catherine Marshall, USA Eija Karsten, Finland/England Edward Metzler, USA Jeff Conklin, USA Julian Newman, UK Rod Jarman, Australia Colin Potts, Atlanta, GA USA Wendy Kellogg, USA Sirkka Jarvenpaa, USA Lee Schlenker, France Stephen Hayne, USA Transcript (in reverse order, you may find it more convenient to start at the bottom of this file): 6:19:26 PM Jeff Conklin exited chat. 6:19:25 PM Stephen Hayne Bye! Let's do this again soon. 6:18:56 PM Jeff Conklin OK, gotta go. Thanks Jonathan and Munir! 6:18:35 PM Munir Mandviwalla Jonathan, were the sesssions presentation oriented? 6:18:20 PM Stephen Hayne Yes - I have successfuly used Netmeeting with 30 people, but without any video/audio - only presentation. 6:17:44 PM Jeff Conklin Plus, we would not have a written record of the conversation without using a chat facility. There are few comments I want to go back and review -- harder to do that with phone. 6:17:29 PM Jonathan Grudin Munir and others -- NetMeeting is ROUTINELY used here at Boeing for groups with more than 10 people. But you need an independent telephone conference call to handle the audio, as Catherine Marshall mentioned... 6:16:14 PM Munir Mandviwalla a complete transcript will be posted on the VMC site 6:16:06 PM Jonathan Grudin Having been in numerous NetMeeting discussions, I think it would have been quite different. Much more would have been said, but it would have been a more linear discussion, and the moderator would have had much more influence. This meeting could have had more said had more people been typing... 6:15:25 PM Jeff Conklin Munir, is there a way to get a complete record of the conversation? Mine only goes back to 5:40. 6:15:24 PM Munir Mandviwalla Jeff, it would be great but netmeeting does not scale beyond 2 to 3 people 6:14:38 PM Rod Jarman Thanks all, bye!! 6:14:37 PM Jonathan Grudin Jeff, answer coming... 6:14:25 PM Stephen Hayne Another thought - my survey research (over 500 working MBAs) has discovered that "large" meetings/interactions are (5% of professional/management time. Small group (less than 5 and really 2-3) is 22%. We need to focus on this segment. 6:14:02 PM Munir Mandviwalla Please remember to fill in the feedback form at http://ww2.cis.temple.edu/isworld/vmc/feedback.htm 6:13:45 PM Jeff Conklin Jonathan -- I'm curious if we organized a conference call with a parallel Netmeeting view of your slides, how would the results of this conference differ? 6:13:20 PM Jonathan Grudin OK, I can't tell from "Users" who has gone, but I guess it is time to wrap this up... Thanks everyone... 6:11:18 PM Lewis Hassell Good bye, and thanks. 6:10:41 PM Colin Potts Have to go. Thanks. 6:09:53 PM Stephen Hayne Now, they may decide that they have a different way to use it once they have mastered the basic design intention - this is always interesting and moves the whole community forward. We can't envision EVERYTHING. 6:09:48 PM Wendy Kellogg LOl, Jeff -- you are FONTastic! 6:09:45 PM Rod Jarman I think I'm halfway between Catherine and Stephen. In facilitation terms you give groups plenty of structure to start with, and once they get rolling they will develop their own norms and conventions. 6:08:59 PM Jonathan Grudin Catherine, to what degree is "can be adapted to solve problems" only possible asa retrospective analysis? 6:08:38 PM Jeff Conklin Woops! Didn't know the whole comment would come out in bold!! 6:08:13 PM Stephen Hayne Catherine - my perception from my consulting is that SPEED is the norm, I can't think of a single client who has told me that they are just going to tinker with a peice of software until they figure out how to use it. 6:08:10 PM Alec Morton I have to go now. Bye and thanks, 6:07:59 PM Eija Karsten social conventions change during use, even when the ground has been hit running - the IT possibilities realized give impetus to changes in social conventions 6:07:49 PM Catherine Marshall Have to go. Great discussion! Thanks everyone. 6:07:27 PM Jeff Conklin Stephen makes a very good point, especially for asynch info-sharing systems (Notes) users. Creating shared practices and meaning without f-t-f contact is hard! 6:07:09 PM Rod Jarman I don't know what the solution to the design issues. Isn't this the old one about designers (and i inlude developers here) can't get useful information from users becuase users can't yet conceive of what is possible. 6:06:33 PM Catherine Marshall Stephen, depends on your situation. Agree that when speedy adoption is required, task-specific design can help. But gw is not going to become ubiqutous in that way. 6:06:03 PM Stephen Hayne I agree - integration/monolith is NOT a good thing, but integration/works together IS! 6:05:39 PM Wendy Kellogg I agree with Stephen that lightweight is very important. Even just starting a Notes discussion database (some of the most basic, built-in functionality) requires dealing with a system administrator. I've seen several people lately adopt AIM (AOL's instant messenger) to do awareness & chat across organizational boundaries. So maybe monolithic gw is only going to succeed for "corporate" or organizational apps, like travel expenses, etc. 6:04:49 PM Stephen Hayne I come from the GSS camp (as opposed to CSCW) and I beleive that users of groupware don't have TIME to build social conventions. We need to design groupware that has conventions built in, so that the community/group can hit the ground running. That means we have to understand the task completely and the software needs to be quite task specific, therefore, lots of lightweight tools. 6:04:18 PM Munir Mandviwalla One of the things that we seem to be agreeing on is that integration of groupware is perhaps not such a great thing? 6:04:09 PM Jonathan Grudin The failure to recognize how role-dependent groupware is means that designers design it for a small set of roles (typically theirs), implementers create defaults for a small set, trainers train for one kind of use, and so forth... 6:03:56 PM Rod Jarman Given the (relative) newness in coll. technologies is it possible for the designers to even conceive of all the possible uses. Did Multiplan designers ever conceive of what would happen to the spreadsheet. Do we want to be prescriptive about uses at this stage? 6:02:48 PM Edward Metzler Have to leave -- bye 6:02:47 PM Catherine Marshall In the arena of communications, the evolution of social conventions also is required -- and this takes time. 6:02:35 PM Stephen Hayne Here at ASU, the calendaring is sponsored by ADMIN (faculty don't care), email is everyone and conferencing is mission critical to instructors and students. Chat is starting to gain acceptance (bottom up). I'm really seeing that monolithic groupware won't make it - lots of lightweight apps will 6:02:19 PM Colin Potts I think Wendy has mentioned one of the major research issues in CSCW: how to specify customized features transparently. Not only should it not seem like programming to them, but there's a big obstacle to making explicit the pragmatics of interaction (who you'll defer to, who's important, why you want to equivocate instead of promising, etc...) 6:02:10 PM Catherine Marshall I think what history shows us is that certain tools become popular because they can be adapted to solve problems. 6:00:47 PM Jonathan Grudin Catherine, I agree. That only makes it more embarrassing that no one recognizes it. 6:00:26 PM Jeff Conklin Re 'featuritis' -- groupware seems an especially good place to explore 'on-line tutorials' that respond just in time to user's learning needs -- not just how to use features, but when to use them, and when not to, so that some shared practices can be created. 6:00:16 PM Catherine Marshall Is it necessary for designers to understand all the ways users will apply to design flexible, extensivle tools? 5:59:49 PM Jonathan Grudin That should have been "more benign" 5:59:37 PM Catherine Marshall Jon, I will play devil's advocate before I leave. What you say could also be said re paper, pencil, telephones, etc. 5:58:25 PM Wendy Kellogg Along those lines, it seems critical to make adapting the gw more lightweight -- when you have to basically program to get it to do what you want it to do, it's hard to adapt it 5:57:19 PM Stephen Hayne Sorry about my "tardiness" - I got caught by the time change (Arizona doesn't). I've noticed in my consulting with a couple of Fortune 500 firms here in PHX that email is sponsored by management, but that other "groupware" tools that are emerging are gaining use from the bottom up, i.e. AlliedSignal is using Cuseeme for viewing broken engine parts without having to travel between buildings/local sites, Netmeeting for looking at diagrams or sharing a document. Their IS shop has no clue 5:57:10 PM Jonathan Grudin Another few thoughts: "featuritis" is more bening than often thought, because different users need different constellations of features. But the HC interface is critical, people won't go far out of their way... 5:54:37 PM Jonathan Grudin For "general" groupware applications such as shared calendars, NetMeeting, some Notes apps, what is emerging from my work is that these apps are used entirely differently by different people in an organization based on their role and activity structure, and this is not realized by designers and implementers, with consequences. Your observations? 5:53:27 PM Rod Jarman By mandated do you mean mandatory? We had an example in Australia where GW use was mandated by management and where it was used cc's of all messages had to be sent to top management. It created a lot of resentment and resistance and ultimately failed -- leaving them back where they started with a lot of 'upset' middle managers. 5:52:42 PM Catherine Marshall Munir, I have to leave very soon. Can we do feedback later? 5:52:38 PM Eija Karsten what creates the need? who recognizes it? the org needs people who know about technological possibilities and tells about them 5:52:08 PM Munir Mandviwalla when we are done here please provide us some feedback by going to http://ww2.cis.temple.edu/isworld/vmc/feedback.htm 5:51:51 PM Edward Metzler Most management is overwhelmed with email so they are afraid of something additional. 5:51:10 PM Jonathan Grudin Munir, at some point will you post the address of the feedback form? I had to close Eudora so don't have it. 5:51:02 PM Eija Karsten management support helps - but it is not necessarily needed, tolerance and ignorance seem to suffice :-) 5:51:00 PM Edward Metzler I believe that most adoption is if Groupware solves a real perceived problem. 5:50:50 PM Paul Weinberg Jonathan --- Agree that bottom-up adoption works better than mandates. The need has to clearly be there. 5:50:47 PM Catherine Marshall What's also interesting is that the nature of management has changed in 15 years, perhaps due in part to new technologies. 5:50:43 PM Stephen Hayne entered the room. 5:50:12 PM Catherine Marshall Jon, agree that much adoption is bottom-up. 5:50:01 PM Jonathan Grudin Wendy, I don't know about cut-off. 5:49:46 PM Rod Jarman Maybe its hard to gloss mediation. A lot of the f-t-f research indicates facilitation which is akin to mediation is the most importnat factor in implementing successful groupware. yet its very complex with research by Clawson identifying 16 roles made up of over 146 different behaviours 5:49:02 PM Jonathan Grudin 15 years ago, some people wrote that a range of groupware applications would only succeed if there was mandated use by management. This would have major design and implementation significance. I've been finding that while management support helps, much adoption is bottom-up. What do you find? 5:48:22 PM Wendy Kellogg jonathan, are we going to be cut off at 6:00pm (EST)? 5:48:14 PM Eija Karsten mediator can also be seen as a resource - in our study the guys were working for the adopting group, not for the whole org and they did what the group asked them to do, of course limited by their own competencies 5:47:03 PM Alec Morton re ibis- jeff do you mean a few people started using it and then taught others to use it? 5:47:01 PM Jonathan Grudin This has gone more slwoly than I expected, at least in part because I've been wrestling with severe performance problems on this PC. I'd like to move to ask a few of my questions in the closing minutes... 5:46:50 PM Wendy Kellogg (Note: you can use the Compose button to type a longer comment without having to break it up) 5:46:10 PM Colin Potts Could we have a quick gloss of mediation? How does this relate to Jonathan's discretion-v- mandate distinction? It seems you have to give up a lot of autonomy to a mediator/ facilitator who you'll accept will tell you how to work and encode that in templates. 5:46:07 PM Lewis Hassell In one org (Smithkline Beecham), it was used to manage projects. It lessened the need for daily meetings, etc. 5:45:36 PM Catherine Marshall NetMeeting (cont): (4) multi-way app sharing (either view only or complete collaborate). 5:45:05 PM Jeff Conklin ... design and planning discussions. 5:45:04 PM Catherine Marshall Wendy: NetMeeting provides (1) two-way audio conf. (2) two-way video conf. (3) multi-way whiteboard... 5:44:55 PM Jeff Conklin Re Colin's point on reinvention - we found that gibis/CM/1/QuestMap was accepted in organizations where at least a few people found it natural to adopt IBIS as a kind of common language for ... 5:44:37 PM Jonathan Grudin Wendy's comment reinforces the point -- without specifying how Notes is being used, it doesn't help address what constitutes success. 5:44:25 PM Edward Metzler What cultural factors are most important for adoption of Groupware? 5:44:14 PM Catherine Marshall What we've been talking about with NetMeeting relates to earlier comment re "reinvention" ... i.e. figuring out what parts work and what don't, what it's really good for. 5:43:37 PM Eija Karsten re reinvention: Wanda O & co discuss the role of "technology mediators" in gw implementation - they can be seen as those who in a variety of ways support exactly the re-invention, apparently much needed with gw 5:43:36 PM Wendy Kellogg Catherine or Jonathan, could you briefly say what functionality is in NetMeeting? I haven't seen it yet 5:43:36 PM Colin Potts Okay. Using Notes for email is for them reinventing (in this case restricting) it into something useful. The same thing happened with most early adopters of CASE tools -- nice graphical editors for most users. 5:43:20 PM Alec Morton re colin's point- I'd be interested to find out how users reinvent IBIS. My experience with similar modelling tools (ie cognitive mapping) is that once users get their hands on them they make them do all sorts of things you didnt intend 5:42:54 PM Paul Weinberg Catherine --- We use phone for audio with Netmeeting document sharing 5:42:35 PM Rod Jarman in relation to an earlier comment by Julian which I think also relates to what Catherine is saying -- I think this type of technology is useful for me at work. For me this is work and the opportunity to participate ina discussion with like minded others from around the world is too good to pass up given my physical isolation on the Australian west coast. Therfore I am tolerant of the technology and willing to invest the time it takes to both learn, and then be comfortable with it. 5:42:26 PM Wendy Kellogg Research (my org) went to Notes about 2 years ago ... we are still in the process of learning how to use the tools 5:42:06 PM Paul Weinberg Alec -- A few people here use Netmeeting. We started using it as a phone substitute but the real value to us is to work on documents in a group. 5:42:03 PM Catherine Marshall Re NetMeeting: In my app we are NOT using it as a replacement for phone. In fact, we're using phone for audio. 5:41:54 PM Lewis Hassell Alec -- who is "people"? Us or end-users? 5:41:35 PM Edward Metzler entered the room. 5:41:32 PM Jonathan Grudin I've been studying successful use of NetMeeting, shared calendars, and other groupware. I think they are very different applications depending on the context in which they are being used... 5:40:59 PM Paul Weinberg Colin --- Not sure 20m Notes users have reinvented it. I know a lot of people that just use it for Email 5:40:36 PM Alec Morton re netmeeting- didnt people see it at first as being a replacement for phone calls/ audioconferences? 5:40:07 PM Wendy Kellogg My "peanut gallery" (here in the lab with me) points out that Notes is both an app builder and a suite of applications and templates 5:39:40 PM Colin Potts One thing emphasized by Rogers that was neglected by most innovation research is the amount of "reinvention" of innovations done by an adopting organization; i.e. formalizing use patterns, customizing, repackaging, etc. If Jeff's not too preoccupied with adjusting his refresh rate, maybe he can comment on how adopters reinvent IBIS (as an example) and how that affects technology use. Or alternately, how do 20 million Notes users reinvent it to support a way of working? 5:39:24 PM Catherine Marshall Rod, are you looking at OZ Bureau of Stat? 5:38:55 PM Julian Newman left the room. 5:38:11 PM Catherine Marshall Paul, in one case a particular problem in the other case created a new opportunity (i. e. solved a "problem" not yet recognized) 5:37:58 PM Jonathan Grudin These descriptions may be too general. Notes is more an application builder... 5:37:56 PM Rod Jarman re Eija's comment around organisations using GW. I've just started looking at at Australian organisation which claims very successful implementation of Notes. In OZ, with great distances and expensive air travel it has addresses a need where a lot of people got left out of the loop in policy making. Although the technology was rough it satisfied a need and they stuck with it. interestingly, it started from using e-mail at the top, and filtered down through the organisation. 5:37:15 PM Paul Weinberg Catherine --- Were you trying to solve a particular problem? 5:37:08 PM Eija Karsten after that the others joined in - enough of stuff in the databases was needed, too 5:36:40 PM Catherine Marshall Re success with NetMeeting and chat... didn't try to replace something that was already working! 5:36:25 PM Eija Karsten re critical mass: not so important, if there is a specific application with the key users (3 was enough in one case :-) 5:36:02 PM Munir Mandviwalla (to Jonathan Grudin) suggest summarizing and then refocusing 5:35:44 PM Paul Weinberg Lost my connection with a 501 not implemented error. Catherine --- What led to your success with Netmeeting and online chat? 5:34:39 PM Catherine Marshall Critical mass also is especially important. 5:34:29 PM Catherine Marshall Re Rogers' work: I think the need/value factor is especially important for gw apps. 5:34:04 PM Munir Mandviwalla if you set refresh to be manual (i.e. the r equals zero) then you can press refresh on the button bar 5:34:04 PM Eija Karsten re Rogers: our Master's students classified adopters according to adoption cohorts - support needed and used by diff groups of adopters is different (see ref on my web page) 5:33:48 PM Lewis Hassell Lotus Notes has "transformed" (user) the way people work at Smithkline beecham. 5:33:17 PM Munir Mandviwalla More on refresh -- type in r followed by an equal sign and then a number (I can't type it as it would change my refresh) 5:33:16 PM Rod Jarman User tolerance is important. Is it a function of need? If you look at Turoff's stuff on (I think it was EMISARI) where they had a need for communication in a situation with crisis management. This great need helped in turn to fuel a desire to get the system to work. And it appeared quite successful. 5:32:59 PM Lewis Hassell Colin -- Rogers is VERY important, but seemingly little read. 5:32:49 PM Catherine Marshall Paul, I've been successful in introducing chat and computer conferencing (NetMeeting) for certain purposes in client companies I've been working with recently. 5:32:14 PM Wendy Kellogg well ... er ... Notes just reached 20 million seats ;-) we could speculate on what caused that 5:31:41 PM Colin Potts Tolerance & perception of value: Has anyone looked at the applicability of Everett Rogers' work to CSCW technology? He summarizes several decades-worth of innovation adoption research and identifies several key innovation features: (from memory) simplicity, compatibility with current practice, perceived benefit to adopters and feasibility of trial adoption. Even though CSCW isn't unique, CSCW seems to have a distinct influence on how each of these factors is assessed. 5:31:31 PM Eija Karsten I'd like to hear if people have experienced/studied gw in business organizations when specific gw-applications (either Notes or Web) have been built to solve specific problems 5:31:21 PM Paul Weinberg Have any of you been really successful in introducing collaboration technologies? What was the perceived value? What caused adoption? 5:30:51 PM Julian Newman I agree with Colin and Paul on this. I would not be so tolerant if I were regarding this as other than a learning experience. I would not use it for real work. 5:30:51 PM Catherine Marshall While this technology is quite crude, it allows me to do things I wouldn't otherwise be able to do. 5:30:28 PM Jonathan Grudin he refresh is killing me. Munir, walk us through slowplease... 5:30:22 PM Rod Jarman re refresh rate, try setting your refresh rate to 0. It stops the screen jumping when reading 5:30:19 PM Munir Mandviwalla Julian: yes 5:30:13 PM Catherine Marshall Tolerance of technology limitations is often related to perception of value. 5:29:45 PM Julian Newman Munir: are you telling us that if we had a lower refresh rate there would be less jumping? Or less frequent jumping? I think the amount of work the user has to do is a major obstacle to uptake. 5:29:32 PM Paul Weinberg Good point Colin 5:28:56 PM Colin Potts Lest my previous comment be treated as sarcasm, I really do think that it's interesting how tolerant we all are of technology limitations, and the support we're giving each other to overcome them. Most user communities are not as tolerant. This is quite important... 5:28:16 PM Lewis Hassell Should we not emphasize tasks/activities to be supportedrather than technologies? 5:28:14 PM Paul Weinberg I would be interested in peoples on adoption of either technology. Where have you been successful? 5:27:59 PM Sirkka Jarvenpaa entered the room. 5:27:11 PM Munir Mandviwalla to reduce the refresh rate type in r followed by the equal sign and a number in seconds (the default is 10secs) 5:27:02 PM Rod Jarman I'd like to suggest that for the purposes of discussion we include sync tools -- and see if there are different issues in adoption and use -- as we progress through our discussions. 5:27:01 PM Wendy Kellogg i withdraw the complaint about "jumping" (professional hazard) 5:26:32 PM Colin Potts But that's the point. Better to discuss the horse before the cart. What affects use, adoption, etc? Then these answers suggest more stable and useful categories. Maybe technology investment or willingness to engage in technology-debugging side conversations [sic.] is more important for adoption and continued use than theoretical distinctions. 5:26:21 PM Jonathan Grudin Unfortunately, rebooted with more memory, my browser is very slow. 5:26:03 PM Munir Mandviwalla Referesh problem -- please look at http://ww2.cis.temple.edu/isworld/vmc/texttutorial.htm 5:25:34 PM Wendy Kellogg our group is playing with blending synch (chatlike) & asynch (persistent chat & threading) to support conversation among workgroups ... 5:25:17 PM Julian Newman Hey, there are breakout rooms arene't there. Should we have a breakout to discuss this jumping probelm and not get in tthe way of the main disucsiuuion? 5:25:02 PM Catherine Marshall conversational mechanisms such as acknowledgements, requests for clarification, repair of errors. 5:24:49 PM Jonathan Grudin My second question dealt with environments. 5:24:26 PM Catherine Marshall To Colin's point: a key difference bt "synch" and "asynch" is that "synch" allows certain conversational mechanisms... 5:24:04 PM Eija Karsten synch to me = meeting rooms, possibly with remote users 5:24:01 PM Julian Newman Jumping - yes - and even when you are scrolling back to get something you missed, it suddenly jumps back. What browser are you using? Is that to blame? 5:23:37 PM Munir Mandviwalla if adoption is different then perhaps asyc and sync should be treated differently 5:23:31 PM Paul Weinberg Wendy--- I suspect this is implemented by polling the server regularly from the browser 5:23:02 PM Colin Potts I'm always bothered when we start a discussion with definitions and categories as if they are really out there. If you replay a recorded meeting for the benefit of latecomers, is that asynchronous? Maybe it's more fruitful to ask how they're used, because that is closer to the subject of organizational adoption. 5:27:11 PM Munir Mandviwalla to reduce the refresh rate type in r followed by the equal sign and a number in seconds (the default is 10secs) 5:27:02 PM Rod Jarman I'd like to suggest that for the purposes of discussion we include sync tools -- and see if there are different issues in adoption and use -- as we progress through our discussions. 5:27:01 PM Wendy Kellogg i withdraw the complaint about "jumping" (professional hazard) 5:26:32 PM Colin Potts But that's the point. Better to discuss the horse before the cart. What affects use, adoption, etc? Then these answers suggest more stable and useful categories. Maybe technology investment or willingness to engage in technology-debugging side conversations [sic.] is more important for adoption and continued use than theoretical distinctions. 5:26:21 PM Jonathan Grudin Unfortunately, rebooted with more memory, my browser is very slow. 5:26:03 PM Munir Mandviwalla Referesh problem -- please look at http://ww2.cis.temple.edu/isworld/vmc/texttutorial.htm 5:25:34 PM Wendy Kellogg our group is playing with blending synch (chatlike) & asynch (persistent chat & threading) to support conversation among workgroups ... 5:25:17 PM Julian Newman Hey, there are breakout rooms arene't there. Should we have a breakout to discuss this jumping probelm and not get in tthe way of the main disucsiuuion? 5:25:02 PM Catherine Marshall conversational mechanisms such as acknowledgements, requests for clarification, repair of errors. 5:24:49 PM Jonathan Grudin My second question dealt with environments. 5:24:26 PM Catherine Marshall To Colin's point: a key difference bt "synch" and "asynch" is that "synch" allows certain conversational mechanisms... 5:24:04 PM Eija Karsten synch to me = meeting rooms, possibly with remote users 5:24:01 PM Julian Newman Jumping - yes - and even when you are scrolling back to get something you missed, it suddenly jumps back. What browser are you using? Is that to blame? 5:23:37 PM Munir Mandviwalla if adoption is different then perhaps asyc and sync should be treated differently 5:23:31 PM Paul Weinberg Wendy--- I suspect this is implemented by polling the server regularly from the browser 5:23:02 PM Colin Potts I'm always bothered when we start a discussion with definitions and categories as if they are really out there. If you replay a recorded meeting for the benefit of latecomers, is that asynchronous? Maybe it's more fruitful to ask how they're used, because that is closer to the subject of organizational adoption. 5:22:39 PM Wendy Kellogg i'll say -- why does this keep JUMPING in the middle of reading it!! annoying ;-) 5:22:35 PM Paul Weinberg Eija --- Sorry ---- I meant --- Why isnt sync used much 5:22:22 PM Jeff Conklin I agree with blending synch and asynch - the division seems arbitrary to me. Doesn't collaborative work move easily back and forth between these modes? Shouldn't the tools? 5:22:12 PM Julian Newman The current meeting is an example of problem in "blending" synch and asynch as Wendy has mentioned. A lot of work to be done by the user. 5:21:47 PM Eija Karsten I said asynch is used a lot 5:21:27 PM Catherine Marshall the telephone. 5:21:24 PM Rod Jarman I agree with Julian. I think the issues arising out of either may inform both -- if that makes sense !!! 5:21:22 PM Catherine Marshall We tend to think in terms of new technologies, but there's an old "technology" that's used a lot for synch communications... 5:20:44 PM Paul Weinberg Eija - Why isnt async used much in Europe? Do you include video conferencing as a synchronous methodology? 5:20:39 PM Julian Newman Although asynch technologies may be not greatly used in Europe, if we take Dophin and the Ocean lab at GMD, it is clear there is plenty of European interest in them. 5:20:33 PM Lewis Hassell ReL "also to replace meetings" -- Eija, is the main point o fGW to replace old techs? Or to develope new channels? 5:20:09 PM Alec Morton re convergence between sync and asynch- Isn't there also a convergence between communication and information systems also. So we can't exclude one without the other? 5:19:56 PM Paul Weinberg Regarding sync and asyc --- I think adoption may be very different for each. Therefore are both interesting to discuss 5:19:30 PM Wendy Kellogg I'm interested in synchronous & asynch too -- also in blending them 5:19:00 PM Eija Karsten synch technologies are not much used in Europe (for a number of reasons) but asynch are very much, also to replace meetings 5:18:55 PM Catherine Marshall Eija, I'd like to include synch because (1) it's a very timely topic and (2) it's what we're using right now, which will give us a chance to reflect as we interact 5:18:50 PM Julian Newman I think we see a converengence of synchronous and asynchronous tools, so I think we cannot exclude synchronous. 5:18:36 PM Lewis Hassell Re: excluding tools. Is there a reason other than limits on time? 5:17:55 PM Rod Jarman I'd suggest including project management tools as well 5:17:27 PM Paul Weinberg Sorry Eija --- Read your message after I sent mine 5:20:44 PM Paul Weinberg Eija - Why isnt async used much in Europe? Do you include video conferencing as a synchronous methodology? 5:20:39 PM Julian Newman Although asynch technologies may be not greatly used in Europe, if we take Dophin and the Ocean lab at GMD, it is clear there is plenty of European interest in them. 5:20:33 PM Lewis Hassell ReL "also to replace meetings" -- Eija, is the main point o fGW to replace old techs? Or to develope new channels? 5:20:09 PM Alec Morton re convergence between sync and asynch- Isn't there also a convergence between communication and information systems also. So we can't exclude one without the other? 5:19:56 PM Paul Weinberg Regarding sync and asyc --- I think adoption may be very different for each. Therefore are both interesting to discuss 5:19:30 PM Wendy Kellogg I'm interested in synchronous & asynch too -- also in blending them 5:19:00 PM Eija Karsten synch technologies are not much used in Europe (for a number of reasons) but asynch are very much, also to replace meetings 5:18:55 PM Catherine Marshall Eija, I'd like to include synch because (1) it's a very timely topic and (2) it's what we're using right now, which will give us a chance to reflect as we interact 5:18:50 PM Julian Newman I think we see a converengence of synchronous and asynchronous tools, so I think we cannot exclude synchronous. 5:18:36 PM Lewis Hassell Re: excluding tools. Is there a reason other than limits on time? 5:17:55 PM Rod Jarman I'd suggest including project management tools as well 5:17:27 PM Paul Weinberg Sorry Eija --- Read your message after I sent mine 5:17:17 PM Catherine Marshall yes! both asynch and synch! 5:16:53 PM Paul Weinberg Re first slide----I agree . . . Both async and synchronous technologies 5:16:44 PM Catherine Marshall stuff has been around for a while 5:16:43 PM Eija Karsten I suggest we exclude syncronous (ie meeting rooms etc) and focus on asynchronous 5:16:37 PM Catherine Marshall The "low level" 5:16:15 PM Catherine Marshall Re first slide, I would include everything on the list... 5:15:40 PM Jonathan Grudin The first slide is: what shall we include as groupware? 5:14:45 PM Julian Newman current slide to have context for the discussion. 5:14:43 PM Wendy Kellogg hi everyone ... sorry i'm late too (technology problems!) 5:14:30 PM Julian Newman I agree with the idea f dfollowiong the issues raised in your slides, Jonathan. I am just wondering how I am going to arrange the screen so I get a full view of the current slide, and enough of the 5:14:21 PM Catherine Marshall Jon, try clearing your cache. 5:14:05 PM Wendy Kellogg entered the room. 5:13:45 PM Jonathan Grudin My NetScape says it has run out of memory. I may have to restart it if no one has an idea... 5:13:04 PM Catherine Marshall Jon, it wasn't so much that we focus on what is specific to groupware as that we make the distinction bt. generic and specific adoption factors 5:12:47 PM Julian Newman Hi. Am I actually in the meeting now? I have been wandering around a lot of text outside this room waiting for the meeting to happen! 5:12:43 PM Rod Jarman Firstly, sorry I'm late. I'm interested in the topic of communication and the role it plays in the implementation of IS generally. This jas led to an interest in groupware and collaborative technologies. I'm particularly interested in the role of facilitation and how this relates to the adoption of groupware. 5:12:16 PM Jonathan Grudin My thought was to follow the issues raised by the slides: discuss what we mean by groupware or group support technologies (through examples of what is included and what is not more than by trying to create a formal definition), discuss what work or recreational contexts we are considering, and then turn to what factors are important in adoption. Catherine Marshall suggested part of this discussion focus on what is specific to groupware. Finally we could discuss concrete steps that ought to be co 5:12:16 PM Jonathan Grudin My thought was to follow the issues raised by the slides: discuss what we mean by groupware or group support technologies (through examples of what is included and what is not more than by trying to create a formal definition), discuss what work or recreational contexts we are considering, and then turn to what factors are important in adoption. Catherine Marshall suggested part of this discussion focus on what is specific to groupware. Finally we could discuss concrete steps that ought to be co 5:11:59 PM Paul Weinberg Why interested -- Our company depends too much on face to face meetings. We have 80,000 flight segments every 6 months between Hartford Ct and Philadelphila alone 5:11:37 PM Jonathan Grudin OK, if other intros come along, great. Moving along... 5:11:34 PM Alec Morton So I have a practical interest, but also I find a lot of the CSCW literature on implementation (esp Jonathan's stuff) very stimulating. 5:10:55 PM Julian Newman entered the room. 5:10:17 PM Alec Morton I am doing my PhD in Distributed Group Decision Support Systems, and I am trying to introduce them to my Uni Department. 5:10:09 PM Jonathan Grudin Text limit -- use COMPOSE 5:09:40 PM Colin Potts Why I'm interested in topic... I'm interested in the conditions of adoption of technology in general, and I think that the issues are more on the surface in the case of CSCW for a couple of reasons: (1) CSCW applications generally support intellectual, discretionary work, and (2) the critical-mass constraints are obviously critical. No point having a chat room if no one wants to chat or the adoption costs are too high. 5:09:40 PM Jonathan Grudin ican be circumvented using the COMPOSE feature... 5:09:34 PM Eija Karsten Why interested - IT support for asynchronous collaborations opens up wide vistas changes in work and in org life in all. I think we are only scratching the surface now, major changes coming... I am trying to figure out how these changes come to be - see my web page 5:09:22 PM Jonathan Grudin I'm hoping for a few more comments -- to make sure people know how to use the technology. 5:09:22 PM Jeff Conklin I think there's simply a happy convergence of two trends: the demands of teamwork in the modern organization, and the possibility of collaborating via the new infrastructure that has appeared. 5:09:00 PM Lewis Hassell Hmm, seems to be a character limit, or maybe I "talk" too much. 5:08:22 PM Lewis Hassell I've worked rolling out groupware (Notes, DVC, e-whiteboards) and I've been fascinated by the divergence of opinion on it's usefulness. I am now trying to find a way to engineer collaborative systems 5:07:31 PM Catherine Marshall I've been doing a combination of research and applied work re collaborative systems for a number of years now, so that's why I'm interested. 5:06:55 PM Rod Jarman entered the room. 5:06:03 PM Jonathan Grudin Something did cut me off. don't we have everyone write a couple sentences explaining why they are interested in this topic... 5:05:28 PM Colin Potts entered the room. 5:04:52 PM Jonathan Grudin Hi Lewis -- Certainly in the early days, we saw that decisions about what to design, do research on, and introduce tended to be made by manageru intuition -- but before we get into a specific topic, w 5:04:21 PM Catherine Marshall Perhaps Jon got one too many Java Script errors! 5:02:40 PM Lewis Hassell Jonathan -- some time back (in one of your articles) you noted that managers tend to introduce the sort of systems THEY think will help. Is this part of the problem/issue? 5:02:19 PM Jonathan Grudin One observation on process: Due to parallel inputs, the discussion is likely to splinter into threads. It might be useful for people to start a comment with a brief thread identifier, such as "Regarding video, ..." or "Regarding management buy-in, ..." It may seem obvious when you are typing but won't when being read. Also, I may occasionally try to divert us to a new topic, and it will be less confusing if we try to follow. 5:01:39 PM Jonathan Grudin The list of planned attendees included friends and acquaintances who are very experienced on these issues, so this should be an open discussion. As moderator I may try to move the discussion along at times, but we will see -- this is my first time with something like this and it will undoubtedly take its own course. 5:01:08 PM Jeff Conklin entered the room. 5:01:05 PM Jonathan Grudin I just got a warning "Too many JavaScript errors" so we will see what happens... 5:00:08 PM Jonathan Grudin I see Paul had entered, and Ken (although I saw no record of it), and a few others. Perhaps we should start... 4:59:38 PM Alec Morton Dark in Glasgow, Scotland 4:59:22 PM Catherine Marshall Thanks for the answer, Munir. 4:59:15 PM Paul Weinberg Sunny in Philadelphia 4:58:58 PM Munir Mandviwalla We will have a log on the main site at the end -- you can make a log yourself by copying and pasting with your mouse 4:58:49 PM Eija Karsten Greetings from Cambridge,UK (raining...) 4:58:03 PM Lewis Hassell entered the room. 4:57:50 PM Eija Karsten entered the room. 4:57:44 PM Catherine Marshall Munir -- can participants make a log? 4:57:22 PM Catherine Marshall hope to see you at CHI'98 4:57:20 PM Jonathan Grudin 4:57:13 PM Catherine Marshall Jon, Main office in Monterey; second "lab" in SF Bay area... 4:56:37 PM Jonathan Grudin Catherine, are you in N. Cal. these days? Making it to CHI'98? 4:56:26 PM Catherine Marshall does it provide a way to create a log file? 4:56:09 PM Catherine Marshall I am not very familiar with WebBoard... 4:55:35 PM Alec Morton Hi everyone 4:55:20 PM Catherine Marshall and everyone else! 4:55:09 PM Catherine Marshall Hi Jon 4:54:56 PM Jonathan Grudin Hello Catherine and Munir and Alec 4:54:49 PM Munir Mandviwalla entered the room. 4:54:49 PM Welcome to "Collaborative Work & Systems (April 6, 1998): J. Grudin", Munir. 4:54:42 PM Alec Morton entered the room. 4:53:55 PM Munir Mandviwalla exited chat. 4:51:19 PM Munir Mandviwalla Hi everybody 4:51:06 PM Jonathan Grudin entered the room. 4:50:47 PM Munir Mandviwalla entered the room. 4:50:47 PM Welcome to "Collaborative Work & Systems (April 6, 1998): J. Grudin", Munir. 4:48:27 PM Catherine Marshall entered the room. 4:39:16 PM Paul Weinberg entered the room.