Collaborative Tools in CSCW

1
Collaborative Tools in CSCW
Gu and Maher University of Sydney Ning_at_design-ning
.net
2
Introduction - Computer Supported Cooperative Work

• Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) the
  study of tools and techniques of groupware as
  well as their psychological, social and
  organizational effects.
• Generic term which combines the understanding of
  the why people work in groups with the enabling
  technologies.
• Groupware different types of technologies
  (hardware, software) used to support and augments
  group work.

3
History of Computer Supported Collaborative Design

• Office automation (OA) - 1970s minicomputers
  promise to support groups.
• Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) -
  1980s by Paul Cashman and Irene Grief.
• Share an interest in how people work, with an eye
  to understanding how technology could support
  them.
• Computer Supported Collaboration (CSC).
• Groupware.
• Group decision support system (GDSS).
• Group communication support systems (GCSS).
• Group information support systems (GISS).

4
Types of Groupware

• Discussion groups.
• Knowledge sharing data collection and
  organization (lotus notes, microsoft exhange
  server).
• Group calendaring and scheduling (CaLANdar).
• Real time meetings (CU-SeeMe, Netmeeting).
• Bulletin Boards (Webboard, Team Talk, Hypernews).
• Workflow (FormFlow).
• Collaborative Document editing.
• Virtual meetings.

5
Tools for Discussion Groups

• Stand alone email, web based email or both (e.g.
  eudora, netscape mail, outlook express).
• Tools for archiving email (e.g. hypermail).
• Mailing list servers listservs (e.g.
  Majordomo).
• Web based discussion systems (http//www.thinkofit
  .com/webconf/).
• Topic oriented discussion systems (e.g. web
  causus, web crossing).
• Threaded discussion systems (e.g. hypernews,
  NetForum, Alta Vista Forum).
• Integrated Groupware Systems (e.g. Lotus Notes,
  FirstClass).

6
Tools for Data Collection and Organization

• Tools for Building Databases (e.g. Lotus Notes,
  File Maker Pro).
• Tools for Retrieving and Accessing Data from the
  Internet (e.g. Google, Yahoo).

7
Tools for Sharing Documents

• Post documents so that others can read or review.
• Co-edit documents
• Group editing tools multiple uses access and
  update the same document (e.g. SamePage, Redline,
  Mentor Center).
• Version control
• Everyone has access to current doc.
• Protect doc so that earlier versions are not
  destroyed.
• Deal with possible conflicts when two or more
  people edit a document at the same time.
• Access control
• Members have authority to make changes or not.
• Write only notes with suggestions to the primary
  writers.
• May only read the document.

8
Tools for Synchronous Communication

• Three main interactions
• Chat.
• Videoconferencing (PictureTel, CU-SeeMe).
• Shared whiteboards (e.g. TeamWave, Netmeeting).

9
Virtual Workplace - Characteristics

• The ability to present a large amount of
  information.
• Natural information lensing.
• Support for many sensory modalities.
• Natural multi-user interaction.
• Natural awareness of co-workers' activities.

10
Virtual Workplace - Goals

• Goals of Distributed workplace
• Connectivity and data sharing capability.
• Structure project and meeting processes.
• Evaluate alternative.
• Create shared perspective.
• Measure consensus.
• Develop a result in a distributed environment.

11
Virtual Workplace - Features

• Simulate 3D collaboration environment
• Allows visitors to sociolize, meet new people and
  access external data
• Can have separate meeting rooms equipped with
  group support systems software
• May have libraries where workers and visitors
  search for information in the virtual presence of
  fellow searches and helpers.

12
Virtual Workplace - Controls

• Degree of telepresence results from a combination
  of features of the technology utilized.
• Vary in terms of vividness and interactivity.
• Vividness the breath and depth of the stimuli
  that technology provides (TV versus Radio).
• Interactivity the extent to which the user
  feels convinced of the mutual effect that he/she
  and the environment have on one another.
• Level of interactivity function
• Speed of response immediate feedback
• Range of possible user interactions (e.g. change
  view, interact with objects)
• Mapping of controls interaction with input
  mechanisms and the changes to the virtual
  environment

13
Virtual Workplace - Avatar

• A common paradigm for representing a persons
  presence is by the use of avatar.
• word - Hindu conception of the physical
  embodiment of a deity.
• Concept 3D shape, most often mirroring the form
  of a real person selected to represent its user.
• Customizable choose any.
• The degree of flexibility encourages a sense of
  ownership and identification with the avatar.
• Ability to transmit information using gestures
  and affect displays smiling, waving, nodding,
  etc.

14
Virtual Workplace Teleconferencing

• Video communication gives facial expressions of
  participants.
• Ordinary teleconferences suffer from a lack of
  spatial cues. Virtual environments can add
• Spatialised sound support for directing attention
  and pinpointing sound sources outside the field
  of view
• Gaze direction as indicator of attention
• Spatial presence and activity of participants
• A text-based 'talk'-window is even in the
  presence of better communication channels a
  useful backup and good for indicating file names
  and the like.
• Audio communication is natural, immediate and
  hands off.

15
Virtual Workplace Application Share

• Applications can be represented in the virtual
  environment and used concurrently or
  alternatingly by the participants.

16
Virtual Workplace Collaboration by Building

• Participants can build 3D environments together.

17
Application Collaboration Tools in AEC Industry

• AEC Industry
• AEC industry ranks as one of the largest industry
  segments in the global economy. In US, AEC
  industry represents a 750 billion industry and
  constitutes roughly 8 of the countrys gross
  domestic product (GDP).
• The industry is fragmented with an estimated
  720,000 establishments in the US alone.
• Professional education, internship and licensure
  in the AEC industry tend to focus on and reward
  individual performance. In the last few years,
  there have been accelerating shift from
  individual design work to design team work.
• However, AEC is a team sport including
  architects, engineers in civil/structural, HVAC
  and electrical design, landscape architects,
  interior designers, etc.

18
Types of Collaboration Tools in AEC Industry

• Team Communication and Document Management
• Aim support various modes of communication, act
  as a repository of various documents, allow
  storage and sharing of them
• Observed Benefits timely exchange of
  information, project documents
• Examples Buzzsaw, Citadon, ProjectVillage,
  Project Talk, Matrix One , Active Team, Bentleys
  Project Wise

19
Types of Collaboration Tools in AEC Industry

• Workflow and Process Automation Tools
• Aim support various business models by managing
  the flow of information, monitoring and recording
  the progress of tasks
• Observed Benefits reduce cycle time, automate
  flow of work or information within a business
  process, better respond to customer demands,
  reduce costs/improve margins, increase
  competitiveness, improve management of resources
• Examples PSA tools by Harper and Shuman,
  Semaphore, RFP, Cosential Systems, e-Builder,
  ProjectVillage.

20
Types of Collaboration Tools in AEC Industry

• Process and Project Management Tools
• Aim support process and project monitoring and
  management
• Observed Benefits better management of the
  resources
• Examples http//www.project-management-software.o
  rg/project/

21
Vendor Collaboration Tools in AEC Industry

• The collaboration tools that have been designed
  and developed by technology vendors include, but
  are not limited to the following solutions
• Bentley Systems Project Bank (Bentley, 1999).
• Cyco Software AutoManager Workflow 6.1 (Cyco,
  2000).
• Cimmetry Systems AutoVue Professional (Cimmetry
  Systems, 2000).
• Adaptive Medias Envision (Adaptive Media, 1999).
  
• ThePigeonHole (ThePigeonHole, 1999).
• Cubus ReviewIt (Cubus, 1999).
• Blueline Onlines ProjectNet (Blueline Online,
  1999).
• Emerging Solutions AdvantageNet (Emerging
  Solutions, 1999).
• Meridian Project Systems Prolog (Meridian
  Project Systems, 1999).
• Framework Technologies ActiveProject (Framework
  Technologies, 2000).
• Delteks Project Workplace (Deltek, 2000).
• Bidcom (Bidcom, 2000).
• Open Texts LiveLink 8 (Open Text, 1999).
• Buzzsaws ProjectPoint (Buzzsaw, 2000).

22
Communication Tools Developed in Academia

• The collaboration tools that have been designed
  and developed in academia include, but are not
  limited to the followings
• CVS - Caneparo, 1995.
• Polytrim - Danahy and Hoinkes, 1995.
• IBDE - Fenves et al., 1994.
• SYCODE Jabi, 1995.
• AgentCAD - Khedro et al., 1993.
• SCDM - Kimura et al., 1995.
• PHIDIAS - Knapp, McCall and Johnson, 1996.
• P3 Kalay, 1997.
• G-W CAD - Morozumi, Murakimi and Iki, 1995.
• ICADS - Pohl and Myers, 1994.
• A Multi-User Design Workspace Rutherford, 1995.
  
• AnnotAgents, Vervenne et al., 1995.

23
Overall Benefits of Collaboration Tools

• Studies showed that AEC industry have gained
  benefits in one or more the following areas when
  utilized existing collaboration tools
• Communication
• 30-60 time saved in communicating project
  progress
• Project life cycle time
• 30-60 reduction in turn around time
• Up to 5 earlier completion of project
• Resource management
• 20-50 savings in time spent on tasks by
  administrative support
• On average 20-30 of actual costs saved
• Up to 50 saving in time spent for researching of
  info about specs and elements of design

24
Overall Benefits of Collaboration Tools

• Finance/Cash Flow
• Increased revenue Earlier site occupation due to
  earlier completion, design team starts working on
  other revenue generating projects
• Decreased cost less interest occurring on
  construction loans, avoid costs of project delays
• Accountability
• Increased transparency
• Increased ownership and responsibility
• Records
• Better documentation of project life cycle
  history
• Decreased legal risk and prevention of
  construction claims less opportunity to shift
  responsibility and take legal recourse

25
Adaptation of Collaboration Tools by the AEC
Industry

• In general architects, engineers and general
  contractors are adopting existing collaboration
  tools for the following reasons

26
Resistance to the Adaptation

• Reasons for resistance to adaptation focus on the
  lack of exposure and education about these tools
  and their benefits.

27
Benefits and Shortcomings of the Existing Tools

• Existing collaboration models and tools have
  amplified the currently practiced design
  processes by supporting team communication,
  shared creation and discovery and shared
  understanding of teams vision.
• However, they have not fully supported the
  current needs and expectations of design teams
  (http//www.coxegroup.com/articles/changes.html)
• They do not support the self-sustainability of
  effective team performance
• They dont distribute the power and
  responsibility for managing team processes to all
  the members of the design team
• Help expand control of the entire building
  delivery process
• Help increase productivity via business-like
  operations, automation and overhead control
• Help design team to formalize and conduct a
  collaborative design process