Grudin, J. "Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces," Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'88), ACM, New York, pp. 85-93.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....harness the full power of working together. Unfortunately, this idea failed to realise its full potential. Researchers such as Jonathan Grudin realised that elaborate Cscw applications are just too hard to implement e#ectively, and we should restrict ourselves to only the most simple applications [12]. From the advent of Cscw came groupware toolkits such as GroupKit [19] Numerous collaborative tools for general, non structured tasks have been successfully created using such toolkits; Greg Phillips presents a comprehensive listing in [18] For relatively focused software engineering tasks, ....

J. Grudin. Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces, pages 552--560. In Marca and Bock [16], 1992.

....person pictured. While many people make their picture available on their home page, they sometimes find it too cumbersome to make their picture available for other uses. This mismatch between the human costs of a system and the human benefits of a system can result in the failure of that system [10]. This paper presents Portrait, a system that automatically creates personal presentations for use with communications systems and information displays. Portrait searches the web for photos and logos to represent individuals and their organizational affiliations. Because many people and ....

Grudin, J., "Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces", Proceedings of the 1988 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work.

....they were closer (good for writer) and physically related to them (good for the readers) or simply to leave a (sometimes recycled or prepared) post it. These ad hoc systems provided yet another alternative for the signin board and its web PDE version. As with many other collaborative systems [Grudin 88] the sign in board and work were used by most co workers in the beginning, and then let down by some users, while still being used by the others. This unfortunate distribution of collaborative information, through usage of various separate systems by different persons, for various reasons ....

Grudin, J. "Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces", in proceedings of CSCW 88.

....environment of users where standards and expectations can be imposed, but it may not work well in a global environment. It may also fail in environments where people just want to get their work done [2] The reasons for this relate to the cost benefit ratio as perceived by the sender of messages [7]. The sender is not the reader, and because adding structure helps the reader find the message, there is no direct benefit to the sender by adding that structure. Typical senders merely wish to write the text of a message and send it. Because senders are often not willing to provide extra ....

Grudin, J.; Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces; In Office: Technology and People 1989, 4, 245-264.

....[LKH90] is another approach inspired by the Information Lens. Lutz et al. criticize that the Information Lens system requires active participation of the sender, which the sender may not generally be willing to provide (for more discussion on the assignment of work and benefit see [CR87, Gru87, Gru89] To alleviate this problem, the MAFIA system shifts part of the user effort from sender to receiver. Instead of senders filling in predefined forms allowing the simple recognition of message types and structure, Lutz et al. use a wrapper program that tries to find the semantic structure of the ....

....ahead for a longer period receive worse filtering quality than other users and are therefore disadvantaged. The risk is that these users could be less satisfied with the system s prediction quality and therefore change their planning behavior or even stop using the system (see for example [Gru87, Gru89] for a detailed discussion on work and benefit in collaborative systems. Collaborative filtering systems, however, need users and especially those willing to contribute ratings to the community. What can be done to improve the situation of early raters Two classes of solutions for the ....

J. Grudin. Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the design and evaluation of organizational interfaces. Office: Technology and People, 4:245-264, 1989.

....and implications for research On a more general level, it can be noted that the role of motivating factors, which was identified as an important factor in this study, has largely been neglected in GSS and EBS research. Despite Grudin s early and influential work on social aspects of groupware (cf. [11, 12]) the question why people would want to share ideas or co operate in the first place is seldom asked. In a recent descriptive evaluation of GSS research conducted in the last two decades [10] no result regarding motivational aspects can be found, and hence the lack of references to recent GSS ....

Grudin, J., "Why CSCW applications fail: Problems in the design and evaluation of organizational interfaces", Proceedings of CSCW `88, ACM Press, 1988, pp. 85-93.

.... [26] From the perspective of system use, several important studies have identified factors that groupware practitioners should be aware of when implementing systems: e.g. the extra burden imposed on some group members through groupware participation [21] the imbalance in costs and benefits [7], unanticipated overhead [3] as well as the potential for innovating work practices [15] Only by observing within a long timeframe could such lessons be learned. Designing groupware requires an acknowledgement of the interplay between the tasks of gaining design requirements, system use, and ....

Grudin, J. Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces, in Proc. of CSCW 88, Portland, Oregon, ACM, 1988, 85-93.

....and left to gather dust. However, although such failure is mundane, understanding the constituents of failure is, perhaps and paradoxically, more complex. Our experience detailed in this paper, of evaluating groupware in a business environment, leads us to suggest that contrary to Grudin s (1988)[4] expectations, recognising and understanding even such gross terms as success and failure in a complex commercial context is far from easy, and it is for this reason that a more nuanced appreciation of success and failure needs to be developed and, in consequence, some form of ethnographic, ....

Grudin, J. (1988) `Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluation of organizational interfaces.' Proc. CSCW `88, 85-93. New York. ACM.

....management programs are used almost all users in the office, and how a Pochet can capture all user appointments and to do items because tasks are often given by off line communications. According to Grudin, who had pointed out the social difficulties in deploying schedule management programs[9], some large companies successfully made their office workers use electronic schedule manager[10] To let users input appointments and tasks, Pochet s design payed maximum attention to encouraging users to manually input their tasks. To get more users to do so, enhancing the user interface is ....

Grudin, J.: Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces, in Proceedings of CSCW'88, ACM (1988), pp.85--93

....user 2 only if user 1 allows user 2 to access the same data about user 1. Other types of reciprocity may also be desirable (e.g. 25] Policy specifications must be easily modifiable during a collaboration. In general, it is impossible to specify the correct policy in advance of actual use [13] of a given collaborative application. Builders of collaborative tools must generally be able to try out various policies and quickly adjust them to suit the sensitivities of their user communities. Further, the desired policies may change rapidly as users gain more experience with the system, as, ....

J. Grudin. Why cscw applications fail: Problems in the design and evaluation of organizational interfaces. In Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work CSCW '88, 1988.

....the original tools [5, 29] However, to the best of our knowledge, PBD has largely not been considered in customizing groupware tools such as shared whiteboards. End user customization by demonstration is in deed of particular interest to CSCW. As has been iterated by many researchers (e.g.[10, 16, 39, 40]) collaborations are inherently fluid, dynamic, and hard to prescribe. Therefore collaboration tools must be customized frequently to cater for the diverse needs of tasks and groups [6, 12] As a matter of fact, the users of collaborative systems and even many of the researchers in the CSCW area ....

J. Grudin. Why CSCW applications fail: Problems in the design and evaluation of organizational interfaces. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'88), Portland, Oregon, Sept. 1988.

....position of the CHASE workspace, and to transmit scrolling events when the PHANToM pushed into a wall. A diagram of this architecture is shown in figure 2. 3. Evaluation 3.1. Design Evaluation in collaborative systems is a more challenging process than the evaluation of single user systems [6]. Frequently a metric such as time to complete a task, or even quality of output, is less important than the somewhat ephemeral quality of the communication between the users. Furthermore, the use of collaborative systems is arguably much more dependant on context than single user systems. There ....

Grudin, J. "Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluation of organization of organizational interfaces" in Proceedings of CSCW'88, (1988), Portland, OR, ACM Press, 65-84.

.... widely in calendars in the 90 s, as a favorite feature and one that led them to use online calendars [15, 16] On line calendars previously did not appeal to individuals who worked at their desks, attended few meetings, and if they kept calendars, preferred the portability and versatility of paper [5]. However, it was easy to lose track of time and miss meetings, so reminders solved a problem for them. Meeting invitations. Integration with email also drew individuals to online calendars. Emailed invitations that can be easily inserted into an online calendar remind those using paper calendars ....

Grudin, J. (1988). Why CSCW applications fail: Problems in the design and evaluation of organizational interfaces. Proc. CSCW'88, 85-93. New York: ACM.

No context found.

Grudin, J. "Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces," Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'88), ACM, New York, pp. 85-93.

No context found.

Grudin, J. "Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces," Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'88), ACM, New York, pp. 85-93.

No context found.

Grudin, J. (1988): Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 85-93, Portland, Oregon, USA, ACM Press.

No context found.

Grudin, J. (1992), Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces, in D. Marca & G. Bock, eds, `Groupware: Software for ComputerSupported Cooperative Work', IEEE Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 552--560.

No context found.

Grudin, J. (1988) Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces. In Proceedings of The ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Portland, Oregon, USA, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA.

No context found.

Grudin, J. (1988). Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 85-93.

No context found.

Grudin, J. (1988): Why CSCW Applications fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Portland, OR. New York: SIGCHI/SIGOIS ACM, pp. 85--93

No context found.

Grudin, J. "Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces" in ACM CSCW'88 Proceedings (September 26-28, Portland, Oregon)

No context found.

Grudin, J. "Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces," Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'88), ACM, New York, pp. 85-93.

No context found.

Grudin, J. "Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces," Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'88), ACM, New York, pp. 85-93.

No context found.

Grudin, J. "Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organizational Interfaces," Proceedings of the Conference on ComputerSupported Cooperative Work (CSCW'88), ACM, New York, pp. 85-93.

No context found.

Grudin, J. (1990) `Why CSCW applications fail: Problems in design and evaluation', Proceedings of CSCW '90, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 8593.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC