Probably the most well-known taxonomy is the time-space matrix proposed by Ellis et al. in 1991 [1]. It divides both temporal and spatial dimensions in two categories: same and different. For example, in face-to-face meeting participants are interacting same time in the same place. This taxonomy was refined by Grudin [2] by dividing the "different" category further in two parts: predictable and unpredictable. This allowed highlighting the difference for example between e-mail (different places, predictable) and bulletin boards (different places, unpredictable). Simple enough.
Or is it? As Nina discussed in her previous blog post, Google Docs could fit in all time-space categories. Because the categories are often overlapping, the taxonomies are not very useful in identifying different types of GW. Another problem with the taxonomies is inconsistency. The time-space classification of GW tools can change over time, as has happened with e-mail due to modern smart phones. Also, e-mail can be used even in the same physical space. I often send e-mails to co-workers who sit in the same room. This problem highlights an important aspect of e-mail: it serves many functions.
Recently, Penichet et al. proposed a new taxonomy for GW [3]. It expands the original time-space matrix by adding function as a third dimension. The function categories are information sharing, communication and coordination. The third dimension provides an interesting insight to e-mail: communication is typically between different locations, but coordination and information sharing are space independent.
References:
- Clarence A. Ellis, Simon J. Gibbs, Gail L. Rein. Groupware: some issues and experiences. Comm. ACM 34, 1 (Jan. 1991), 38-58.
- Jonathan Grudin. CSCW: History and Focus, IEEE Computer 27, 5, 19-26.
- V.M.R. Penichet, I. Marin, J.A. Gallud, M.D. Lozano, R. Tesoriero. A Classification Method for CSCW Systems. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 168 (2007), 237–247.
Great articulation! It was very pleasant to read because of the logical/systematical separation for the issue. This kind of Blog discussion is needed more. Very unique and academic touch.
ReplyDeletethanks for the hint - I did not even know about the journal, not to speak of the classification system.
ReplyDeleteContent-wise, even the proposed new classification scheme seems to have the basic problem of the previous classifications, namely
"The taxonomy is non-exclusive, meaning that a function could be classified with
different attributes at the same time." [p. 246]
To make it easier for others to access, here's a link.
For me, the benefits of considering the taxonomies is not in the exact positioning of the tools in cells but in showing that groups actually need to work in very different ways, and technologies could span over the cells so that people do not need to switch from one tool to another when they come face-to-face or are mobile or work at a distance.
BTW, your blog is also in some weird time zone. I am not working in the middle of the night but now it is Jan 27, 9:38 am.
ReplyDeleteCould you try to change the settings for the blog?
Now the time zone should be right :).
ReplyDelete