One for one and none for all?

Work in an organization is mainly a group activity. Despite this, much computer software treats human work as though each member of the organization acts individually and autonomously. It ignores the force-field of dependencies and obligations within which each employee must operate. Also, it treats atomistically the data and information flowing to and from that person.

Much of this focus on the individual is a carry-over from the design of operating systems for multi-user computers. The notion of the virtual machine gives each user the illusion of being the only person on the machine at that time. This is ingenious but has been in some ways a cul-de-sac. The rise of the personal computer has emphasized this computing isolation.

Underlying it are attitudes to work design and human behaviour that have scarcely advanced from those of Henri Fayol, F.W. Taylor and Henry Ford. How many systems designers get a good grounding in modern principles of organizational design and development?

Groupware helps

Some progress has been made over the last two decades through the increasing use of collaboration software. This has gone under various names, such as groupware, workgroup computing and computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW). The underlying idea with all these is that of working together - co-labouring. Implicit is the notion that each user's identity is important to other users.

The difficulty comes when you look at what gets included within that category. Workflow software was for instance often classed as groupware. This is erroneous since it mainly enforces predefined sequences of actions by individual users. It is akin to passing a baton rather than genuine team working. The workflow system sometimes wouldn't even tell users the name of other users, just their role in the overall process. Rebadging workflow as business process management has not changed its nature.

Electronic mail qualifies, since it allows two people to collaborate. It is less good at some-to-some working. The same is true with instant messaging.

Some-to-some collaboration is possible mainly through text conferencing, such as online forums, video conferencing, voice conferencing, shared editing and shared screens.

Unified communication (UC) is a current favourite topic but is intrinsically only as collaborative than its constituent parts allow it be. UC lowers the cost of providing multiple communications channels but does not change their modes of operating. Email, telephony and the various types of messaging and conferencing work the same whether 'unified' or provided separately.

A working definition

Boiling all this down, collaboration software must:
- purposely tell each user who else is on the system (these days called 'presence')
- allow those users to work together in at least a one-to-one fashion and, preferably, some-to-some. The latter implies that one-to-some and some-to-one working are also possible.

Depending on its purpose, collaboration software works in real time (or near enough) or asynchronously. Real-time tools include video and voice conferencing, shared screens, online whiteboards and instant messaging. Asynchronous, or store-and-forward, communication is typified by email, text conferencing, shared diaries and voice and video messaging.

Desirable for either mode are:
- a means of recording an exchange or session, to aid recall, allow wider publication and provide an audit trail
- some kind of meta-communication, such as annotating, tagging or indexing
- secure working, using the software's own tools or those in the operating environment, possibly both.

.

I will expand on some aspects of these musings in a few days.