Mandviwalla, 'WORLD VIEW OF COLLABORATIVE TOOLS', Arachnet Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture v2n02 (May 16, 1994) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/aejvc/aejvc-v2n02-mandviwalla-world The Arachnet Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture __________________________________________________________________ ISSN 1068-5723 May 16, 1994 Volume 2 Issue 2 MANDVIWA V2N2 ======================================================================== THE WORLD VIEW OF COLLABORATIVE TOOLS Munir Mandviwalla Temple University mandviwm@astro.ocis.temple.edu Abstract The experiences, biases, and world views of the developers of collaborative systems are important factors in understanding the systems' adoption and use. This importance stems from the multiple-user attribute of collaborative tools. When a single- user tool does not match user needs and preferences, the individual user is able to change the tool relatively simply; users of collaborative tools do not have this luxury, because they all need to use the same system. This paper describes and analyzes the relationships among the most common world views employed by the developers of collaborative tools, and analyzes world views in terms of their potential to influence users. Adaptive structuration theory (Poole & DeSanctis, 1990) is proposed as a way to understand the behavior and response of users to the "spirit" or world view of a particular tool. This paper also examines the behavioral feasibility of developing tools to support multiple world views. 1.0 Introduction A significant number of collaborative systems have been developed and documented. Researchers refer to these systems with a variety of terms such as Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS), Computer Mediated Communication Systems (CMC), Group Support Systems (GSS), Computer Supported Cooperative Work Systems (CSCW), and Groupware. This paper uses the term "groupware" generically to describe information systems that support collaborative work groups. The experiences, biases, and world views of the developers of groupware are important factors in understanding the adoption and use of such tools. Although identifying the world view of developers is an interesting question in itself, the following unique attributes of groupware increase the relative importance of the issue: o MULTI-USER Groupware typically has a multiple-user component. When a single-user tool does not match user needs and preferences, the individual user is able to change the tool relatively simply; users of collaborative tools do not have this luxury, because they all need to use the same system. For example, one world view in designing a meeting support system is that the leader decides what participants work on and when. Another world view is that the leader only selects a general agenda, allowing the flow of the meeting to determine when each specific agenda activity is discussed. Even though some participants of the meeting may strongly prefer the first alternative to the second or vice versa, a particular system typically only supports one world view. o DEFINITION An examination of world view is important in the area of collaboration support because of fragmented and differing viewpoints on the definition, scope, and goals of collaborative systems. An understanding of the world views used by designers who develop group decision support systems (GDSS), computer supported cooperative work systems (CSCW), and groupware may bring us closer to a shared and common definition. o USER-CENTERED DESIGN The movement toward user-centered design of systems suggests that if world views are attributes of systems then the user should be able to influence or select the world view of the system. An analysis of world views embedded in current approaches should assist users in matching the technology to their needs. 2.0 What Is A World View? A world view is a belief about how things are or should be. Mechanism, formism, organicism, and contextualism are examples of world views (Pepper, 1942). Whiteside and Wixon (1988) explain that world views offer a coherent and internally consistent view of the world, and note that the analysis of world views is a powerful starting point for examining belief systems. World views influence research. According to Winograd and Flores (1986, p. 24) In the day-to-day business of research, writing, and teaching, scientists operate within a background of beliefs about how things are. This background invisibly shapes what they do and how they choose to do it. Systems development research is no exception. All design work involves the explicit or implicit use of design principles that are based on a world view (Winograd, 1986). The principles guide the construction of systems by determining the questions that are raised and the types of solutions that are offered. 3.0 Origins of Groupware World Views World views that influence groupware design originate in the people who are connected with the design of the system. The tool used to develop the system and the environment in which it is developed also may influence the design. The origin of particular world views may be cultural, experiential, gender-based, organizational, technical, and so on. A world view can vary in scope. Some views reflect our most basic values, such as beliefs about the rights of others. Some may reflect specific theories, such as socio-technical systems theory. Others are aligned with technical views of how a system should operate or be developed, and with skills needed to use the system. For example, developers who have spent most of their professional lives building batch applications may carry over "batch" ideas to interactive applications. Designers, programmers, managers, and users can bring a multitude of world views to a particular systems development project. A detailed analysis of how a world view is created in different individuals is beyond the scope of this work. The subsequent analysis in the paper assumes the following: o VIEW COMPATIBILITY A system will reflect a collection of world views that are consistent with each other. This paper treats the behavioral portion of these views as a whole. The successful completion of a development project may result in a system that exhibits several world views that vary in scope and focus. However, the process of development will result in views that are compatible with each other. Incompatible views will be winnowed out through negotiation and discussion among the people involved in the project. o VIEW SOURCE In current systems, the most important source of the overall world view of a system are the designers and developers since they have ultimate control over the system. o VIEW FOCUS This work concentrates on the world views of groupware design work in research institutions, as reflected in published papers written by the designers and developers. o VIEW INDEPENDENCE This paper also assumes that artifacts can represent world views independent of the observer. The discussion later describes how the observer can discover and create (i.e., appropriate) a new perceived world view. 4.0 World View and Adaptive Structuration Poole and DeSanctis (1990) propose "adaptive structuration" theory as a tool for understanding the adoption of GDSS. The components of the theory include: SYSTEM: A social entity (e.g., a group that demonstrates an observable pattern of relations). STRUCTURES: The rules and resources used by actors to generate and sustain the system. Structures are drawn from social institutions or are provided through technology. SPIRIT: An aspect of technological structure. The spirit is the goals and attitudes that the technology promotes. STRUCTURAL FEATURES: Another aspect of technological structure. Structural features are the specific rules and resources built into the technology. STRUCTURATION: The process that describes the group's creation and use of structures. APPROPRIATION: Each group forms its own particular collection of structural features. The collection of features is appropriated from social institutions and technology. Appropriations can be faithful to the spirit of the technology or ironic. According to Poole and DeSanctis (p. 180) When a group uses a voting procedure built into a GDSS, it is employing these rules to act, but -- more than this -- it is reminding itself that these rules exist, working out a way of using the rules, perhaps creating a special version of them; in short, it is producing and reproducing the rules for its present and future use. Adaptive structuration theory (AST) is well-suited for analyzing the influence of world views embedded in the system by designers, because it explicitly differentiates "spirit" from "structural features. Other theories usually treat the system as a black box or as a collection of features. In the context of this paper, the "spirit" of a system is analogous to the world view of the system. Structural features are the specific technological design strategies that support the spirit. 5.0 World Views Researchers have discussed the world view of collaborative research in general, and of collaborative systems in particular. For example, Steiner (1986) traces the underlying views affecting social psychological research on groups. Grudin (1991) contrasts views aligned with the internal development of collaborative systems with views aligned with packaged software. Galegher & Kraut (1990) contrast prescriptive and permissive designs. DeSanctis (1993) contrasts individualism and democratic views with collectivism. Since the purpose of this paper is to analyze world views in terms of their potential to influence users, we need to examine directly the views that are being used to develop systems. An organizational scheme for directly analyzing world views is developed next. The organizational scheme follows a substrate structure (see Table 1, below). At the first level, the "basic technological world views" describe perceptions about the role and purpose of technology. These perceptions influence the views that follow. The second level contains the specific views. The views are grouped together under the "developmental", "invention of artifact", and "collaboration map" labels. The specific view is described in terms of its behavioral beliefs on the type and shape of computer support for collaboration. These beliefs influence the spirit and structural features of a collaborative system. At the final level is a design strategy. The design strategy reflects beliefs about ways of developing computer support for collaboration. These beliefs influence the structural features that are incorporated into the system. The behavioral world view (spirit) and design strategy (structural features) are separated in my analysis because they do not have a one-to-one correspondence. In other words, a behavioral world view may lead to more than one design strategy. Table 1 CLASSIFICATION OF WORLD VIEWS ----------------------------------------------------------------- BASIC TECHNOLOGICAL WORLD VIEWS -------------------------------------- Technological determinism Technological emergence Interactive determinism Socio-technical approach -- SPECIFIC GROUPWARE WORLD VIEWS --------------------------------------- Developmental Invention of artifacts Collaboration map -- DESIGN STRATEGY --------------------------------------- (various) ----------------------------------------------------------------- This paper uses the term world view for all the above levels, although the term "world view" may be inappropriate for the lower levels. Yet, this usage is consistent with the meaning taken in this paper: a world view is a belief about how things are or should be. The organizational scheme is motivated by a desire to examine the user effects of views embedded in system designs. Therefore, the structure goes from general beliefs to specific design strategies. There are other potential classification schemes (see Whiteside & Wixon, 1988). The basic technological world views are based on Majchrzak and Davis (1990) (see below). The groupware world views and design strategies are based on the author's subjective interpretation. An objective and replicatable method of identifying views would have been preferable. This is a problem, because any analysis of world view obviously is colored by the observer's world view. Nevertheless, every effort was made to ensure that identified world views are consistent with their original vision, through careful examination of multiple papers written by people involved in the development of the groupware and by direct examination of some systems. From the perspective of this paper, the world view of a system may be different from the world view of researchers experimenting with the system (as opposed to building the system). The system world view also may be different from the user world view that is created when users interact with the system. The examples used to illustrate the points in the following sections distinguish among these different world views. Of most interest is the world view embedded in the system design. 6.0 Technological World Views The world views at this level come from beliefs about the role and application of technology. The identification of types of views at this level is based on work done by Majchrzak and Davis in computer integrated manufacturing (CIM). Although factory automation may seem at first glance to be quite different from collaboration, there are some similarities. According to Majchrzak and Davis (1990), workers in CIM factories must be adept at solving abstract problems and performing unstructured tasks. Production frequently requires team effort; decision making authority must be distributed further down the line, therefore mutual dependencies are created. These observations also apply to team based office work. Majchrzak and Davis identify four "approaches" (world views) that have been used to study the human issues relating to technology implementation. The current paper suggests that these world views also can be used to understand the design of groupware. 6.1 Technological Determinism Determinism is the view that the introduction of new technology has predictable consequences. The assumption is that the relationship between technology and human behavior is unidirectional (Spacapan & Oskamp, 1990). Technological determinism "views technology as an exogenous force which determines or strongly constrains the behavior of individuals and organizations" (Markus & Robey, 1988, p. 585, cited in Majchrzak & Davis, 1990). With respect to groupware, the developer assumes that the introduction of technology can significantly alter group behavior. For example, the design of the Coordinator (Da Vinci Systems, 1991) and GroupSystems (Ventana, 1992) may be termed deterministic. The deterministic view encourages the developer to explore design choices that can alter group behavior. Some researchers have labeled one version of this view as "utopianism." That is, the placement of a specific technology as the central enabler of an utopian vision (Dunlop & Kling, 1991). In the groupware context, this would translate into a belief that technology can solve all the problems of collaboration. For example, there is an assumption in the Coordinator software that many of the problems of communication would be solved if people were to follow the Speech Act Taxonomy. Utopianism also assumes that technology can achieve a set of utopian goals regardless of human behavior. For example, the design of the interface in Coordinator made it difficult for people to avoid the Speech Act Taxonomy in their electronic communication. In GroupSystems, the interface is designed so that participants in a meeting can work only on the topic selected by the facilitator. Another version of the utopian view has been called "egalitarian." That is, the act of focusing only on the positive aspects of collaboration while ignoring the status, power, and interest differences among group members (Kling, 1991). For example, Grudin (1988) found that group calendaring was problematic because the software assumed that everybody in the organization had the resources and inclination to share their (what used to be private) calendar with everybody else. 6.2 Technological Emergence In this view, the introduction of new technology causes a "dynamic interplay among workers, managers, technology, and organizational context" (Majchrzak and Davis, 1990, p. 42). The interplay of complex social interaction among people, roles, and objectives enabled by the new technology results in organizational change. Researchers applying an emergent world view may get results similar to Bullen and Bennett (1990). The authors found that the users of the Coordinator system ignored features that organize different types of "speech acts" into linked "conversations", instead using the software as an electronic mail package. In other words, although the world view of the Coordinator may have been deterministic, users appropriated the software into a less deterministic world view. The researchers were able to identify this action as being of interest (and perhaps valid) because they were following an emergent world view. With respect to groupware design, the developer may assume that the new technology is one of many determinants of organizational change. Since the developer cannot predict social dynamics, they may decide to concentrate on refining and inventing new technological artifacts that have more do with technical goals than with social understanding. The developer or another researcher then might gather usage data on the new tool and attempt to explain the results using an interconnected web of factors. Results often are inconclusive, since the design was not based on a theory of user behavior. Many of the early groupware packages adopted this world view by default because they were faced with general frameworks of workgroup behavior (Goodman, Ravlin & Schminke, 1990) and contingent variables such as task, environment, and composition (Gladstein, 1984). This situation was compounded by significant technical challenges. Thus, it is not surprising that many early groupware developers concentrated on inventing new collaborative artifacts (see section 7.2 for further discussion). 6.3 Interactive Determinism A hybrid of the first two views, interactive determinism assumes that some aspects of organizational change are brought about directly as a result of new technology, while other aspects emerge from social interaction. The view holds that the social aspects cannot be predicted from knowledge of the technology alone. This is the meeting point of the "results oriented" emergent developer and the "socially aware" deterministic developer. Most current groupware follows this view, whether the original view was emergent or deterministic. One way to characterize early groupware development is to suggest that research in the area known as group decision support systems (GDSS) followed a deterministic world view, while early research in computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) followed an emergent world view. However, this generalization does not fully apply, given the wide variety of approaches that have been used by developers in both areas. 6.4 Socio-Technical Approach The socio-technical approach is based on the view that organizations must jointly optimize the functioning of technical and social systems (Majchrzak & Davis, 1990; Bostrom & Heinen, 1977). The "technical system" refers to components that contribute to the task accomplishment goals of the organization; the "social system" refers to the quality of work life goals of the organization. According to Majchrzak and Davis (1990), the socio-technical approach is different from the other approaches in that it does not view technology as a fixed phenomenon; the emergent and interactive approaches view technology as a given whose usage can be adapted for different needs. In the groupware context, a socio-technical approach implies a study of user requirements, an understanding of the various technical options, and a conscious attempt to match the technology and the requirements. This approach is commonplace and taken for granted by "systems analysts." However, achieving it has been difficult in groupware development because early researchers were faced with very little knowledge of the user and of technical options. 7.5 Adaptive Structuration and Technological World Views It is interesting to observe that adaptive structuration theory works with all of these views. For example, a developer following a deterministic approach can be concerned with ensuring faithful appropriations of structural features, while the emergent developer can use AST as a way to test the social implications of the design. However, in full use the AST theory lends itself to the socio- technical approach. For example, a developer may design structural features in such a way that they can be appropriated easily by the group. Then specific world views may be examined in the context of the technological world view. The terminology of adaptive structuration is used next to describe the design's spirit and structural features. 7.0 Groupware World Views 7.1. Developmental Those holding this view are interested in repairing and enhancing the process of collaboration and meeting (hence the label "developmental"). The developmental world view is rooted in studies of group development that have pinpointed various dysfunctional group behaviors (e.g., scapegoating, inequal participation; see McCollom, 1990, for an overview). These group behaviors also are known as process losses (Steiner, 1972). The developmental world view seeks to minimize process losses and to increase process gains, in the context of decision making- oriented collaborative activity. These objectives are typically achieved through structures applied to the group interaction process via the software and a human facilitator. The best examples can be found in DeSanctis and Gallupe (1987), and more recently in Nunamaker et al, (1991). Commercial and prototype systems developed with this view have a deterministic flavor (e.g., GroupSystems). However, most of the empirical research in which these systems have been studied follows what Majchrzak and Davis call "interactive determinism". The developmental world view is implemented in systems using a combination of the following design strategies. o ACTIVITY DRIVEN Huber (1984) concludes that it may not be possible to design a generalized GDSS, because the possible decision-group tasks are beyond enumeration. Huber suggests an activity driven (as opposed to task driven) design strategy. This strategy is based on the view that no matter what tasks a group may engage in, its members will be carrying out one or more of the following activities: information retrieval (or generation), information sharing, or information use. Applications of this strategy develop structural features in the system, based on the activity typology. o INFORMATION EXCHANGE According to DeSanctis and Gallupe (1987), decision making occurs through interpersonal communication, which in turn is based on the exchange of information among group members. Changing the pattern of interpersonal exchange and communication in a positive direction is one way to support group decision making through technology. Applications of this strategy develop structural features that can change the patterns of interaction in a group. o SHELL According to DeSanctis and Gallupe (1987), it is not possible to have an architecture that is suitable for all group decision support situations. There is considerable variation in information exchange patterns across groups; no one generalized decision making exchange pattern is effective for all groups. The authors recommend a structural feature called a "shell" that supports the generation of different tools. 7.2. Invention of Artifacts Those holding this view focus on the development of novel collaboration structural features (artifacts), such as shared environments and drawing tools. Because the research in this category does not necessarily start with a well-articulated behavioral spirit, it is difficult to label the work generically as deterministic, emergent, etc. A behavioral world view sometimes is generated following a bottom-up approach in which the researcher first develops the artifact, then develops explanations for how the artifact will influence behavior. This may be done by connecting the artifact with current theories or by developing new behavioral models. Studies of systems that are developed in this invention mode usually follow an emergent or interactive determinism approach. Examples of design strategies include: o SHARED WORKSPACE This design strategy is based on abstracting the concept of a chalkboard to WYSIWIS (what you see is what I see) views of workstations (Stefik et al, 1987). Workstations in a meeting room are synchronized so that they provide a shared, focused workspace for group work. Tools are implemented to support various tasks in this shared workspace. More recent versions of this strategy have loosened the synchronization among stations, but have kept the concept of a shared common workspace. The most important structural feature in this strategy is the shared workspace. o CONTINUITY WITH DESKTOP This strategy extends the shared workspace idea to integrate two existing kinds of individual workspaces: computers and physical desktops (Ishi, 1990). This is done with a virtual shared workspace over which users can interact, by sharing their computer screen (for concurrent pointing, writing, drawing), by sharing their physical desktop, and by using a live video and audio communications link for face-to-face conversation. 7.3 Collaboration Map The collaboration map label groups together views that range from deterministic to socio-technical. The researcher here is interested in modeling collaborative behavior and in implementing systems based on these models. Alternatively, the researcher may focus on a particular sub-domain of collaboration (such as collaborative authoring), and derive behavioral views to mirror the issues in that sub-domain. The sub-domain views are not discussed further. Continuing with the metaphor of a map, the world views described below can be differentiated by the topographical features that they emphasize. The "language action" view focuses on the semantics of speech used for interaction among group members; the "life world" view focuses on the daily mundane activities that surround office work and interaction; "coordination theory" focuses on the interdependent activities and processes that make up coordinated work. Although the language action view does not have a technological world view per se, implementations of the view have had a deterministic flavor. The lifeworld view is emergent, while work on coordination seems closest to the socio-technical approach because of its focus on customization. 7.3.1 Language Action This view holds that the lifeblood of an organization is neither data nor computation, but interaction (Winograd & Flores, 1986; Winograd, 1986). Work in an organization consists of a network of interlinked interactions or actions. The language and the meaning embedded in the use of words serve as a starting point for establishing the network of interconnected actions. Language comprises syntax (the rules of structure), semantics (the relationship between structures and meanings), and pragmatics (composed of action and context). The action component of pragmatics originates from speech act theory. Speech acts capture the actions or the suggestion for action embedded in sentences. The focus of the language action view is to start at the structure of work embodied in the actions and context surrounding pragmatics, then use that structure to study the forms of interaction. This view has guided the design of systems and studies, such as COSMOS (Bowers & Churcher, 1988), Coordinator (Da Vinci Systems, 1991), and Meeting Memory (Sandoe et al, 1991). o SPEECH ACTS AS TEMPLATES The most common structural features for implementing the language action world view is the use of speech acts for structuring communication. An example application might be adding speech act-based templates on top of an electronic mail system. 7.3.2 Lifeworld and Workaday World The lifeworld is a term that is used to describe the daily world (Schutz & Luckman, 1973). According to Moran & Anderson (1990), the lifeworld is the mundane everyday activities, relationships, knowledge, and technological and other resources, that comprise the day-to-day world that we take for granted, do not see specifically, and usually do not question on a day-to-day basis. The Workaday World view holds that technology is part of a lifeworld and can be understood from the perspective of people working in the lifeworld (Moran & Anderson 1990). Those holding this view look at the relationship between working life and technology. The interrelated components of the Workaday World are technologies, sociality, and work practice. Examples of this view can be found in work at Xerox EuroParc on multimedia environments (see Moran & Anderson, 1990). o INTERACTION SPACE The design strategy for implementing this view focuses on the use of multimedia technologies. The modality and richness of the medium provides the structural features of the system. The media provide a way to support and extend the range of possible social encounters in a work day. 7.3.3 Coordination Theory Malone and Crowston (1990) provide another view called "coordination theory." Coordination Theory is the interdisciplinary study of coordination that can be used in the design of cooperative tools. Coordination is the act of working together harmoniously (including both cooperation and conflict). The narrow (according to the authors) definition of coordination is the act of managing interdependencies between activities performed to achieve a goal. Interdependence is important because if there is no interdependence there is nothing to coordinate. Interdependence between activities can be analyzed in terms of common objects that are involved in both actions. These common objects constrain activities. Different patterns of use of the common objects will result in different kinds of interdependencies. The types of interdependence are prerequisite, shared resource, and simultaneity (time at which more than one activity must occur). A situation may be characterized in terms of the interdependencies that it involves. The coordination process can be described by successively deeper levels of underlying processes. At the top is coordination (goals, activities, actors, resources, and interdependencies), then group decision making (goals, actors, alternatives, evaluations, and choices), then communications (senders, receivers, messages, and languages), and lastly there is perception of common objects (actors and objects). Examples of this view can be found in Lai and Malone (1988), which describes development of the Object Lens system. o SEMI-STRUCTURED OBJECTS AND AGENTS The design strategy here is based on providing users with the structural features to create their own cooperative applications (Lai & Malone, 1988). These building blocks are semi-structured objects and agents. Semi-structured objects are used to define templates of information, and the agents are used to define rules that act upon the information in the objects. 8.0 The Effect of World View The effect of the world view of a system can be analyzed in terms of four situations in which the world view will be important to the users. The situations include: 1. Matching the system to the user 2. Training 3. Impact on the user 4. Customization 8.1 Matching the System To the User Knowledge of the world view of groupware can help a group decide whether to adopt the system. For example, developers of the technology can describe the spirit of the system in their product literature. Users then can decide whether the spirit of the system and the system's corresponding structural features match their needs. The process of fitting the world view to the user is important, because world view-related constraints will influence the overall appearance and operation of a system. Matching these constraints to the needs of users is particularly important for collaborative applications. If the world view of a system does not match all of the (potentially different) users, then some users may decide to stop using the system. This is problematic, because a collaborative application needs multiple users if it is going to be successful (Grudin, 1988). Fitting the world view to the user also is attractive because a particular world view may be demonstrably superior or more desirable in a given context. A group that is undergoing social and morale problems may be better off with a system that supports a developmental view. For example, GroupSystems (Ventana, 1992) -- with its emphasis on consensus building and information sharing -- may help the group overcome problems of communication and trust. A long lived group whose members are comfortable with each other and whose objectives are clear-cut may be better off with a system that provides simple collaborative artifacts, rather than one that tries to develop the artifacts or to impose a model of collaboration (for example, a shared whiteboard system for occasional brainstorming). Further research is needed in mapping the characteristics of different types of groups to different world views. There are practical difficulties in fitting world views to users. Although researchers are necessarily concerned with world view, a commercial developer may have no interest in this issue. A group that is presented with the world view of the system may not know what to do with it. That is, the group may be unable to translate abstract descriptions into specifics of its situation. A group also may be unaware of their own world view or of their world view preferences. Although matching the world view of the system to users may sound like a good idea, it has many practical limitations (see below for a discussion of customizing the system to the world view of the group). 8.2 Training Poole and DeSanctis (1990) hypothesize that if users have knowledge of the spirit of the system, then it is more likely that their appropriation will be faithful. The training materials for a system can focus on helping the user learn both the structural features of the system and its spirit. Knowledge of the spirit may help new users predict the syntax of commands and the presence of structural features. Such knowledge also may help users realize the potential domains of application for the new system. Training materials can provide information about the world view of a system by including a section on the "spirit" of the system. 8.3 Impact On the User According to AST, the process of structuration results in a group appropriating the structural features of a system for the group's use. The appropriation may be faithful or ironic to the spirit of the system and to its structural features. In this paper, there is an interest in the influence on users from world views embedded in the system design. The analysis of this issue can be conducted at several levels. At a macro level, the influence of system-based world view can be positive, if the world view somehow enables the group to accomplish its objectives. Accomplishment of objectives can be further sub-divided into task accomplishment and social goals. For example, the world view of a system may structure the process of group interaction in such a way that dysfunctional behavior among members is reduced, or forces the group to address these dysfunctions directly. This structuring may allow the group to complete its task successfully, in a minimum of time. The effect of system-based world view is negative if the view hinders the group from its task accomplishment goals or if the view creates social problems (such as low morale). Clearly, it is possible for a view to have a positive influence in one dimension, but a negative influence in another. At a more detailed level of analysis, it is useful to consider the differential effects of world view on the individuals that comprise and supervise the group. For example, the world view of a system may be interpreted differently by a manager supervising the performance of the group, by a leader responsible for the actions taken by the group, and by individual group members. It is feasible that one set of individuals may perceive the system- based world view in a positive manner, while others see it in a negative manner. According to Poole and DeSanctis (1990), the actions of a leader may influence how well other members perceive the world view of the system. Moreover, some world views influence the role of the leader. For example, a developmental world view may increase the role and responsibilities of the leader, while an artifact view may assign no specific role to the leader. GroupSystems for example, increases the importance of the group leader or facilitator. The analysis above assumes a static view of system world view. According to adaptive structuration theory, a group can adapt the world view and structural features of a system to its needs. The respective constituencies may react differently to different adaptations. For example, a manager may be displeased at an ironic appropriation (but later pleased when the appropriation results in successful task accomplishment). A process of negotiation may take place among the different constituencies as over time the group slowly appropriates the system. The negotiation may not focus explicitly on adapting the world view, but instead may be part of other social processes. For example, an influential group member may convince the leader to adjust usage of the system to correspond to the member's mental model and way of working. It may be possible to interpret studies of interaction among group members as a negotiation on appropriating world views. 8.4 Customization The analysis above assumes that the world view of a system and its structural features are malleable in ways important to perceptions and use. Another way to examine this issue is in terms of tool customization. Most modern systems have extensive customization options. These can range from low level individual options (e.g., set color) to larger group level options (e.g., select among different tools and set the appearance of menues) (Mandviwalla, 1994). Group level customization options may conceivably allow the group to adjust the world view of the technology. However, complete customizability may never be possible, due to technical constraints. In the context of adaptive structuration, this means that group members may be able to modify the spirit and structural features of the system. For example, the Object Lens system described by Lai and Malone (1988) and the CGS Environment system described by Mandviwalla et al (1991) include group level customization options. There is a technical limit to the customizability of the respective systems. An extension of the customization option is the idea of selectable world views. Although some researchers have advocated paradigmatic pluralism at the conceptual level (Moran & Anderson, 1990), most existing systems do not sustain more than one world view. It is up to the user to appropriate the usage of features and/or customize the system. A selectable world view may be implemented by allowing users to select from different sets of customization options. For example, the "style" sheets in modern world processors are analogous to this idea. Bringing customizable systems into the discussion considerably increases the range of negotiation options among the leader (and/or system administrator) and group members. Adapting the world view of the system and its structural features to the needs of the group falls within the socio-technical approach. It may be useful to interpret negotiation among group members about customization options as the process of jointly optimizing the technology and the social goals of the group. Before considering the negotiation process, it is important to ask whether such negotiation will in fact occur, and if it does occur whether the process will have a beneficial result. Will the users of collaborative software, faced with the inherent complexities of normal use, even consider using the customization options? It is possible that users may stop using the system if the "default" options do not satisfy their needs or match their individual world views. It also is possible that forcing users to select one of a number of world views prior to usage may surface conflicts that ordinarily would not surface in a one world view system. As discussed previously, users may not be able to understand abstract descriptions of world views and may not be able to align the descriptions with their needs and desires. Moreover, the process of thinking about these issues may lead users to compare their mental models to the mental models of other members in the group. The negotiation could degenerate into a stand-off, with nobody willing to abandon their preferred mental model. By contrast, a one world view system would present the group with an immutable given, an environment that would not distract them from their task accomplishment goals. Further insight into these issues could be gained in empirical studies that manipulate the world view of a system and record the effects of those manipulations. Such studies will need to operationalize the important structural features of the system. Silver (1991) proposes that two important structural features of decision support systems are restrictiveness and guidance. Mandviwalla (1994) expands these human-to-computer characteristics to include structures that describe human-to- human interaction in groupware. The characteristics identified by Mandviwalla include the level of synchronization among group members and type of work support (group versus individual). Day (1993) proposes a three dimensional typology of constraints that can be used to measure the effect of these structural features. 9.0 Summary The world view of groupware will influence its adoption and use. This paper identifies world views used by groupware systems development researchers. The world views are presented as part of a structure that can be used to understand the relationship and effect of each view. Adaptive structuration theory is used to describe the world views and analyze the effects of the views on users. References Bostrom, R. P. & Heinen, S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective, Part I. Management Information Systems Quarterly 1(3) (September), 17-32. Bowers, J., & Churcher, J. (1988). Local and global structuring of computer mediated communication: Developing linguistic Perspectives on CSCW in COSMOS. CSCW Proceedings 1988, 125- 139. Bullen, C. & Bennett, J. (1991). Groupware in practice: An interpretation of work experiences. In Dunlop, C. & Kling, R. (Eds.), Computerization & Controversy, 257-287. Boston: Academic Press. Da Vinci Systems (1991). Coordinator II [software]. Raleigh, NC: Da Vinci Systems Corporation. Day, D. L. (1993). Behavioral and perceptual responses to constraint management in computer-mediated design activities. Electronic Journal of Communication, 3(2). DeSanctis, G. & Gallupe, R. B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33(5), 589-609. DeSanctis, G. (1993). Shifting foundations in group support systems research. In Jessup, L. & Valacich, J. (Eds.), Group Support Systems: New Perspectives, 97-111. New York: Macmillan. Dunlop, C. & Kling, R. (1991). The Dreams of Technological Utopianism. In Dunlop, C. & Kling, R. (Eds.), Computerization & Controversy, 14-29. Boston: Academic Press. Flores, F., Graves, M., Hartfield, B., & Winograd, T. (1988). Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6(2), 153-172. Galegher, J. & Kraut, R. (1990). Technology for intellectual teamwork: Perspectives on research and design. In Galegher, J., Kraut, R., & Egido, C. (Eds.), Intellectual Teamwork, 1-20. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 29, 499-517. Goodman, P., Ravlin, E., & Schminke, M. (1990). Understanding groups in organizations. In Cummings, L. L. & Shaw, B. (Eds.), Leadership, Participation, and Group Behavior, 333-385. London: JAI Press. Grudin, J. (1991). CSCW: The convergence of two development contexts. CHI Proceedings 1991, 91-97. Grudin, J. (1988). Why CSCW applications fail: Problems in the design and evaluation of organizational interfaces. CSCW Proceedings 1988, 85-93. Gutek, B. (1990). Work group structure and information technology: A structural contingency approach. In Galegher, J., Kraut, R., & Egido, C. (Eds.), Intellectual Teamwork, 63- 78. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Huber, G. P. (1989). Issues in the design of group decision support systems. MIS Quarterly 3, 195-204. Ishii, H. (1990). TeamWorkStation: Towards a seamless shared workspace. CSCW Proceedings 1990, 13-26. Kling, R. (1991). Cooperation, coordination, and control in computer supported cooperative work. Communications of the ACM 34(12), 83-88. Lai, K. & Malone, T. (1988). Object lens: A "spreadsheet" for cooperative work. CSCW Proceedings 1988, 115-124. Majchrzak, A. & Davis, D. (1990). The human side of flexible factory automation: Research and management practice. In Oskamp, S. & Spacapan, S. (Eds.), Peoples Reaction to Technology: The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology, 33-65. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. Malone, T. & Crowston, K. (1990). What is coordination theory and how can it help design cooperative work systems? CSCW Proceedings 1990, 357-370. Mandviwalla, M. (1994). The Design of Group Support Systems: Generic Requirements, Design Framework, Systems Development Strategies, and a Case Study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School Programs in Information Science (January). Mandviwalla, M., Gray, P., Olfman, L., & Satzinger, J. (1991). The CGS environment. HICSS Proceedings, Vol. III, 600-607. Markus, M. L. & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science 34, 583-597. McCollom, M. (1990). Reevaluating group development: A critique of familiar models. In Gillette, J. & McCollom, M. (Eds.), Groups in Context, 133-154. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Moran, T. P. & Anderson, R. J. (1990). The workaday world as a paradigm for CSCW design. CSCW Proceedings 1990, 381-393. Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R., & George, J. (1991). Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM 34(7), 40-61. Pepper, S. (1988). World Hypotheses. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1942. Referenced in Whiteside and Wixon (1988). Poole, M. & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In Fulk, J. & Steinfield, C. (Eds.), Organizations and Communication Technology, 173-193. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. Sandoe, K., Olfman, L., & Mandviwalla, M. (1991). Meeting in time: Recording the work group conversation. ICIS Proceedings 1991, 261-271. Schutz, A. & Luckman, T. (1973). The Structures of the Life- World. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press. Silver, M. (1991). Systems that Support Decision Makers. Chicester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 1991. Spacapan, S. & Oskamp, S. (1990). Peoples reaction to technology. In Oskamp, S. & Spacapan, S. (Eds.), Peoples Reaction to Technology: The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology, 9-29. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. Stefik, M., Foster, G., Bobrow, D., Kahn, K., Lanning, S., and Suchman, L. (1987). Beyond the chalkboard: Computer support for collaboration and problem solving in meetings. Communications of the ACM 30(1), 32-47. Steiner, I. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. New York: Academic Press. Steiner, I. (1986). Paradigms and groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19, 251-289. Ventana (1992). GroupSystems [software]. Tucson, AZ: Ventana Corporation. Whiteside, J. & Wixon, D. (1988). Contextualism as a world view for the reformation of meetings. CSCW Proceedings 1988, 369- 376. Winograd, T. (1986). A language/action perspective on the design of cooperative work. CSCW Proceedings 1986, 203-220. Winograd, T. & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. _____ Articles and Sections of this issue of the _Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture_ may be retrieved via anonymous ftp to byrd.mu.wvnet.edu or via e-mail message addressed to LISTSERV@KENTVM or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU (instructions below) or GOPHER gopher.cic.net Papers may be submitted at anytime by email or send/file to: Ermel Stepp - Editor-in-Chief, _Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture_ M034050@MARSHALL.WVNET.EDU _________________________________ *Copyright Declaration* Copyright of articles published by Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture is held by the author of a given article. If an article is re-published elsewhere it must include a statement that it was originally published by Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture. The EJVC Editors reserve the right to maintain permanent archival copies of all submissions and to provide print copies to appropriate indexing services for for indexing and microforming. _________________________________ _________________________________ _THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ON VIRTUAL CULTURE_ ISSN 1068-5327 Ermel Stepp, Marshall University, Editor-in-Chief M034050@Marshall.wvnet.edu Diane (Di) Kovacs, Kent State University, Co-Editor DKOVACS@Kentvm.Kent.edu ____________________________ GOPHER Instructions ____________________________ GOPHER to gopher.cic.net 70 ____________________________ Anonymous FTP Instructions ____________________________ ftp byrd.mu.wvnet.edu login anonymous password: users' electronic address cd /pub/ejvc type EJVC.INDEX.FTP get filename (where filename = exact name of file in INDEX) quit LISTSERV Retrieval Instructions _______________________________ Send e-mail addressed to LISTSERV@KENTVM (Bitnet) or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU Leave the subject line empty. The message must read: GET EJVCV2N2 CONTENTS Use this file to identify particular articles or sections then send e-mail to LISTSERV@KENTVM or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU with the command: GET where is the name of the article or section (e.g., author name) and is the V#N# of that issue of EJVC