Supporting Informal Collaboration in Shared-Workspace Groupware

Shared-workspace groupware has not become common in the workplace, despite many positive results from research labs. One reason for this lack of success is that most shared workspace systems are designed around the idea of planned, formal collaboration sessions - yet much of the collaboration that occurs in a co-located work group is informal and opportunistic. To support informal collaboration, groupware must be designed and built differently. We introduce the idea of community-based groupware (CBG), in which groupware is organized around groups of people working independently, rather than shared applications, documents, or virtual places. Community-based groupware provides support for three things that are fundamental to informal collaboration: awareness of others and their individual work, lightweight means for initiating interactions, and the ability to move into closely-coupled collaboration when necessary. We demonstrate three prototypes that illustrate the ideas behind CBG, and argue that this way of organizing groupware supports informal collaboration better than other existing approaches.

[1]  Natalia Romero Herrera,et al.  A field study of community bar: (mis)-matches between theory and practice , 2007, GROUP.

[2]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Things to Talk About When Talking About Things , 2003, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[3]  Bonnie A. Nardi,et al.  Interaction and outeraction: instant messaging in action , 2000, CSCW '00.

[4]  Saul Greenberg,et al.  The notification collage: posting information to public and personal displays , 2001, CHI.

[5]  Saul Greenberg,et al.  Supporting social worlds with the community bar , 2005, GROUP.

[6]  Michael J. Muller,et al.  One-hundred days in an activity-centric collaboration environment based on shared objects , 2004, CHI.

[7]  Robert W. Root,et al.  Design of a multi-media vehicle for social browsing , 1988, CSCW '88.

[8]  Steinar Kristoffersen,et al.  An empirical study of how people establish interaction: implications for CSCW session management models , 1999, CHI '99.

[9]  R. W. Root,et al.  Informal Communication in Organizations: Form, Function, and Technology , 1990 .

[10]  Michael Boyle,et al.  The language of privacy: Learning from video media space analysis and design , 2005, TCHI.

[11]  Saul Greenberg,et al.  Making contact: getting the group communicating with groupware , 1993, COCS '93.

[12]  Victoria Bellotti,et al.  Walking away from the desktop computer: distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team , 1996, CSCW '96.

[13]  James Begole,et al.  Flexible collaboration transparency: supporting worker independence in replicated application-sharing systems , 1999, TCHI.

[14]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Portholes: supporting awareness in a distributed work group , 1992, CHI.

[15]  Steve Benford,et al.  User embodiment in collaborative virtual environments , 1995, CHI '95.

[16]  Saul Greenberg,et al.  TeamRooms: network places for collaboration , 1996, CSCW '96.

[17]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Providing artifact awareness to a distributed group through screen sharing , 2006, CSCW '06.

[18]  W. Keith Edwards Session management for collaborative applications , 1994, CSCW '94.

[19]  Michael Boyle,et al.  Groupware Plug-ins: A Case Study of Extending Collaboration Functionality through Media Items , 2006 .

[20]  John C. Tang Findings from Observational Studies of Collaborative Work , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[21]  Wendy A. Kellogg,et al.  Socially translucent systems: social proxies, persistent conversation, and the design of “babble” , 1999, CHI '99.

[22]  Anoop Gupta,et al.  Designing and deploying an information awareness interface , 2002, CSCW '02.

[23]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Shared Workspaces: How Do They Work and When Are They Useful? , 1993, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[24]  John C. Tang,et al.  Lilsys: Sensing Unavailability , 2004, CSCW.

[25]  Andy Hopper,et al.  The active badge location system , 1992, TOIS.

[26]  Owen Daly-Jones,et al.  Informal workplace communication: what is it like and how might we support it? , 1994, CHI '94.

[27]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Splitting the organization and integrating the code: Conway's law revisited , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering (IEEE Cat. No.99CB37002).