A Project-centered Course: Collaborative Computing Nicholas C. Romano, Jr. Research Associate
[email protected] Jay F. Nunamaker, Jr. Regents professor & Director
[email protected] Center for the Management of Information McClelland Hall 114 Karl Eller Graduate School of Management University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721
Abstract This paper describes four years of experience designing and teaching a project-centered course in collaborative computing that seeks to integrate new experiences into the MIS curriculum. The course grew out of our desire to expose students to collaborative computing in a fashion that we hope will help them to bridge their knowledge from the classroom to the realities they will face throughout their careers. We have become increasingly aware that collaborative computing technology, often termed “Groupware”, is changing how people work. We are also aware that research in this area has been ongoing for over thirty years; yet we also feel that many MIS students, especially undergraduates, have little or no practical exposure to this technology, prior to graduation. We developed a project-centered course in collaborative computing and as a result it has become a popular elective in our MIS curriculum and of benefit to our students.
Introduction We have become increasingly aware that collaborative computing technology, often termed “Groupware”, is changing how people work. We are aware that research in this area has been ongoing for over thirty years [10, 15, 22, 27, 30, 40-41]. We feel the benefits that we and others working in this area have seen from case studies using computer supported collaboration techniques are so great that we believe these changes must inevitably happen [7, 16, 24, 38, 50]. Yet, we also think that these changes will be neither easy nor swift. New technologies have at times caused organizational power shifts, which may in turn engender user resistance [1, 21, 29]. We are confident that those who embrace this change and master collaborative computing technology will develop strategic advantages over those who do not. Collaborative computing technology, as we prefer to define it, provides tools to solve collaboration-oriented business problems. We feel that Groupware is not merely technology, rather it is a combination of collaborative tools, processes, and techniques to leverage the intellectual capital
of groups and thereby increase their productivity. Results from a great deal of research in the lab and the field have shown that collaborative technology can impact how people communicate, work together, and accomplish goals [6, 8, 11-12, 14, 16-18, 29, 34-35, 37-38, 41, 51]. We feel that this will change the very nature of the way people work and may often lead to structural changes in organizations [1, 13, 21, 32, 36]. Even potentially more important is the possibility that groupware often may require significant changes in organizations that apply it to their business problems [21, 29]. Resistance to change has a long documented history. We assert that what Machiavelli wrote in the late 1400s on implementing change is still relevant today and applies very well to the implementation of collaborative computing technology in organizations. “There is nothing more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes to a state’s constitution. The innovator makes enemies of all those who have prospered under the old order and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new.” [23]
We think that overcoming resistance to change may be one critical issue that determines success or failure of collaborative technology implementations. We think that Groupware may drastically change how people communicate, coordinate, and collaborate to such an extent that it may lead to both very strong opposition and equally strong support. We believe that MIS students need to be exposed to and gain an understanding of collaborative technology while they are in school, in order to be prepared for the changes in the workplace of the future. We believe that they need to do more than just read about the technology and use it in class a few times; we assert that they need to experience how it affects organizations, teams and individuals through practical experience and learning through discovery.
1060-345/98 $10.00 (c) 1998 IEEE
Groupware Defined We do not espouse the idea that Groupware is a panacea for everything that ails the modern business world. We have heard and read hundreds of different definitions of Groupware and it is difficult to get any two individuals to agree on a single definition. Some have gone so far as to say that groupware is everything from e-mail to electronic meeting systems. We have seen the term all too often used as a catchall for any software that two people can use together to communicate. The term Groupware was coined in 1982: “An intensional group process plus software to support them” [22]. We see collaborative technologies as consisting of new technology that enables groups to work together in ways they otherwise could not. We think that a shared definition is unlikely and we are aware that there are many different categories of Groupware [5, 19, 33]. What is important for us is whether collaborative technology provides solutions to real business problems and improves productivity to an extent that it gives competitive advantage. Nunamaker et al. posit that in order to appreciate the value of group support systems one must experience them through use solving a real problem [35]. In fact at the Center for the Management of Information we have stopped providing demonstrations of GroupSystems© and will only show it to interested parties which are willing to work on a real problem. We would argue that in order for MIS students to appreciate the value of collaborative technology and the difficulties and challenges to implementing it successfully they must gain practical experience working on real problems of design, development and implementation. Many authors have discussed the trend toward collaboration and team-centered work as being very strong and fueled by changes in both technology and business strategy [1-2, 19-21, 25-26] (and many others too numerous to mention). It would seem logical to us that this drive toward teams would be reflected in MIS curricula at all levels.
Collaborative Computing Class The Collaborative Computing Class offers an opportunity for upper division undergraduate and graduate students to participate in a project-centered course designed to involve them directly in the research, development and practical applications of collaborative technology that have helped the University of Arizona’s MIS Graduate program to be ranked among the top four programs for eight consecutive years and the MIS Undergraduate program to be ranked among the top three for two consecutive years, in U.S. News & World Report's annual ranking of the Best Schools in America [42-49]. For us it has been a win-win situation in which the students gain experience beyond the normal MIS curriculum and we gain from their endeavors to learn through discovery. The course covers many topics including group support systems and team telework, it explores the adoption, deployment, and use of Groupware, and it involves students in the use, research, and development of information
technology to enhance team productivity. The Collaborative Computing class strives to expose students to all aspects of Groupware from research and development to implementation and use in the field to solve real-world problems.
Objectives for the Students The course has several objectives, each of which is designed to provide opportunities that extend beyond the traditional MIS curriculum and to challenge the students to develop and employ new skills in challenging situations. We feel that we must provide our MIS students with experiences that will be both relevant and transferable to their future careers. With this in mind we have incorporated many new components into the curriculum for the course. One goal is to help the students understand how they can best take advantage of collaborative computing technology when they move beyond the Univeristy and into their careers. Further we feel that they should develop skill and insight into unstructured problem solving. We have noticed that many students have difficulty with problems which lack structure. We assert that this may be due to the fact that few students are given opportunities to work on highly unstructured problems, where they are expected and allowed to learn from both failures and successes. Often with unstructured problems we have seen that it may take several failed attempts before one develops a viable structure and solution. We have a motto at the Center for the Management of Information, “if it is worth doing, it is worth doing badly at first”. Our course provides students an opportunity to work on a project that may be a failure, and yet learn a great deal from that experience. Once they enter the world of work they will have few opportunities to dabble on the bleeding edge of technology, let alone be allowed to work on a project that may fail, and yet teach them important lessons that will help them to succeed in the future. We especially hope that our students gain insights into how collaborative computing technology can be applied within the business world. We strive to provide lessons learned about the challenges and difficulties we have observed through our experiences; however, it is the student’s work on applying collaborative computing technology to solve real problems that we believe leads them to learn through direct involvement in discovery. Additionally there are four major skill sets that we feel will be crucial as part of the curriculum of the future, and we have incorporated them into our project-centered course. They are: Technical, Communication, Thinking and Interpersonal skills. Following are explanations of how we have attempted to integrate these skills into the curriculum of our collaborative computing class. Technical Skills: We provide our students with opportunities to get involved in technically sophisticated projects and to work with technical mentors who can assist them with guidance and knowledge. Students are expected in the course of their projects to tackle a technically unfamiliar area and become well versed enough to accomplish a worthwhile result.
1060-345/98 $10.00 (c) 1998 IEEE
Following are some of the ways we provide opportunities for our students to develop technical skills. • • • • • • •
Provide technically competent project mentors Provide technical assistance with software and hardware Provide programming resources for development and implementation Work with real companies on technically challenging projects Provide hands on experience with new technology Point them to references that will help them solve their own technical problems Let them attempt to solve technical problems for themselves before assisting them
Communication Skills In order to ensure that students gain useful experience in both written and verbal communication we require the students to present in both venues frequently throughout the semester. We place an emphasis on presentation skills and video tape the students presenting so they can watch themselves and learn from their own behavior. We want our students to be able to effectively communicate about collaborative computing both verbally or in writing to anyone they come in contact with. For example if they are sitting on an airplane and the person next to them asks what they do, they should be able in a few minutes to explain collaborative computing to a noncomputer-literate individual. We hope they could talk about it to their parents, siblings, spouses, friends or anyone they interact with without having the other person becoming totally dumbfounded. A portion of the final exam requires students to write a thirty second description of what collaborative computing means to them, in one half-page of text. We feel this challenges them to think in ways that are atypical for university students. We hope that this experience helps them to learn how to get their point across clearly and succinctly for other topics as well. Students are provided opportunities to gain experience in the following areas: • • • • • • • • • •
Public Speaking and Presentations Phone Conversations and Conferences Desktop and room to room Videoteleconferences Short Written Memos Concise Speeches and Lectures Individual and Group Presentations Letters to Prospective Sponsors, Investors or Employers Communications with real businesses to solve their problems Expressing problems in mathematical terms and through models Using Group Support Systems to Plan and Execute Group Tasks
Thinking Skills: We believe that the goal of education is not to ask students to memorize content-laden lists of facts, but rather to teach them how to think and then to use thinking processes to solve new problems. Thinking in this context refers to learning mental processes that enable students to successfully solve the many unfamiliar problems they will face throughout their lifetimes [4]. We believe that if students learn problem solving processes and how to apply
them to problems they encounter in their lives, then they can use them to solve problems in any content domain. Research has begun to show that students can gain greatly from using thinking processes repeatedly and that they can later apply the process to new and unfamiliar problems. [4]. We provide many opportunities for our students to learn and employ problem solving processes and techniques on a regular basis within our course. Following are examples of some of the mechanisms we have added to the curriculum to promote thinking skills: • • • • • • • •
Harvard Business Case Studies Using GSS Students acting as consultants to business project sponsors Assignments which require thinking and documentation of the process Multi-stage projects that tie experience across classes and even semesters Provide structured approaches when teaching step by step thinking processes Ask students to express problems in mathematical terms and as models Facilitation and Group Process Experiences Business Process Modeling Sessions
Interpersonal Skills Since our emphasis is on collaboration and team work we feel that our students must learn interpersonal skills through experience and trial and error. We have incorporated many opportunities for students to interact with one another in our class including: • • • • • •
Group efforts as a major part of the curriculum Holding classes in electronic meeting rooms Group projects being more prominent than individual projects Placing importance on peer evaluations at the end of projects Requiring small group interaction other than group projects Having students learn about a topic, then teach others and learn through double loop learning
We believe that by directly incorporating technical, communication, thinking, and interpersonal skills into the curriculum of our class and combining them with real-world oriented projects, our students benefit.
Campus-wide Student Enrollment We believe that the IS curriculum of the future will be multi-disciplinary in nature. With this in mind, we have involved students from multiple disciplines in our course and empowered them to work together and learn from each other’s diverse experience and knowledge. Our course is open to all upper division undergraduates and all graduate students on the campus. We have had a great variety of students over the last four years. The most memorable class was one in which we combined the class with Law Students and team taught with Dr. Whinton Woods of the U of A Law School. Following is a list of majors for our students from outside MIS: • • • • •
MBAs Law Students - 2nd and 3rd year Communication- Ph.D. and Masters Anthropology Media Arts
1060-345/98 $10.00 (c) 1998 IEEE
• • • • • • • •
Library Science Ph.D. Computer Engineering Graphic Arts Computer Science Math Education Race Track Management Hotel & Restaurant Management
Team Exams and Assignments Another interesting part of the course are group examinations and assignments, in which grades are based partially on individual work and partially on group work. There has been discussion in the collaborative technology literature about cooperative and collaborative incentives and structures [3, 5, 17, 31, 33]. We decided to use this technique in order for the students to better understand the concept that it may be necessary to switch from individual to group based rewards and incentives. Results of research into cooperative incentive structures have suggested that groups can solve various types of problems better when they work together than when any one of the members works alone. [9, 39] We have employed several different types of cooperative and collaborative examinations within the class. Some of them have met with more success than others, but on the whole we feel they are good learning experiences for both us as instructors and for our students.
Team vs. Individual Efforts and Performance Based on the results of work [3, 5, 19, 31, 35] in the area of cooperative incentives we decided to have the students perform an assignment individually and then as teams. We expected to find what the results of previous research had shown, that the group result would be better than even the best of the individual results. We were surprised to find that the group papers were not as high in quality as the best individual effort. Individual skills shined in personal efforts, but were not reflected as brightly in group efforts. This was true for both undergraduates and graduate students. We are not sure why this is so, but we speculate that since the groups were rather large there was strong competition from all members to get at least some portion of their individual efforts into the final group paper, and this lead to some of the best ideas being overlooked or modified, especially if they had come from one superb individual effort. Class-wide Effort: Tucson/Hong Kong Video Conference We also offer opportunities to have the entire class involved in a major efforts that require them to work together and with other classes at remote sites to pre-plan a collaborative event, pay close attention to technical, social, and behavioral details, determine what is required to make it happen, and then to pull it off. We held a video conference between our class in Tucson Arizona and a class at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST). There were several interesting aspects to this event and the students at both locations had to work with technical staff and each other to make the conference a success.
Our students were tasked as a class to develop an agenda for the conference. They used Groupystems© to discuss and argue about the agenda and finally to vote and come to consensus. Three items were placed on the agenda for each class: A local cultural presentation, a menu of a typical local meal, and an interactive question and answer session. Each class was thus tasked with developing a presentation on their respective cities, values and cultures, which they would give during the video conference, a menu of a typical meal that the other class could prepare and eat after the session, and some questions in advance for an interactive question and answer session, which would be sent via e-mail The first hurdle they faced was that it was to be the first overseas video-conference that would originate from HKUST's newly constructed case room. This was a real challenge and groups at both ends had to try several times to make a connection to test the feasibility prior to the actual event. More than ten attempts were made before a video link was established. Technical experts had to be brought in to help get things working properly. The second hurdle was the time difference, Hong Kong is 15 hours ahead of Tucson. Fortunately neither Hong Kong nor Tucson adheres to daylight savings time and that made things a little easier. The problem was that the classes did not meet at the same time and one or the other might have to attend at an unusual hour. After negotiations it was decided that the conference would be held on two different days, and still at the same time. In Hong Kong it was held on Thursday October 31, 1996 from 9:30am to 11:00am, while in Tucson it was held on Wednesday October 30, 1996 from 6:30 PM to 8:00pm. Jay Nunamaker lead and coordinated our students remotely from HKUST, so they were able to experience a remote lecture and presentation from an instructor that they normally see face-to-face. Bruce Reinig, an Assistant Professor at HKUST, and Olivia Sheng, a Visiting Professor at HKUST, were the instructors for the students in Hong Kong and partners in making the event happen. Both classes presented interesting material on Hong Kong and Tucson and provided interesting menus of local dishes for the others to try. After the session both classes had a meal prepared that matched the menu provided by the other group as closely as possible. This provided an opportunity for socialization and cultural growth outside of the classroom environment. Following are the menus put forth by both classes: Hong Kong Dinner Menu: This is a summary of the menu that the Hong Kong Students prepared and presented to the students at the University of Arizona. Their presentation included pictures of the dishes. “Dim sum” • Snacks
•
Shao Mai" & Shrimp Dumplings. The most popular dim sum in Chinese Restaurant. Spiced eggs. Use Chinese tea leaves toboil with the eggs.
1060-345/98 $10.00 (c) 1998 IEEE
• Soup
• •
Sweet Rice in Bamboo Leaves. Traditional food for "Tuen Ng Festival" Dried Molluse Soup with Carrot and Green Oriental Radish Hot and Sour Soup. The delicious soup from Shanghai -- a good appetizer
Main dishes • "Ma-po" Beancurd & Spicy Eggplants Hot Pot. They are two famous dishes from Si Chuan. In two different occasions ... • In wedding banquet, serving shark fin soup is a way to show respect to the guest. • When you are sick, having a bowl of congee will help you recover. Dessert • Bird’s nest with Egg. Bird’s nest is a protein rich substances • Red Bean Soup Traditional common dessert
Tucson Arizona Dinner Menu: This is a summary of the menu that the University of Arizona Students prepared and presented to the students at the Hong Kong. Their presentation included pictures of the dishes. Nachos and Salsa • Fresh tomatoes, onions, peppers and cilantro make the salsa. Tortilla chips with cheese carry it to your mouth. Quesadillas: • These are simply tortillas with melted cheese inside. They're simple, tasty, timeless and perfect. Margaritas: • Invented by a bartender in Northwest Mexico. The recipe for the perfect margarita is widely debated, but it centers on tequila and lime juice. Chimichangas: • A filling of meat and cheese wrapped in a tortilla then deep fried. Chimichangas were invented in Tucson! Chicken Fajitas: • Fajitas are grilled meat and vegetables served with tortillas. They’re great with fresh salsa. Chiles Rellenos: • Roast chiles, stuff them with cheese, then deep fry them and you have chiles rellenos, another favorite among Tucsonans. Tamales: • A seasoned meat filling wrapped in corn flour dough, then a corn husk and steamed.
Tacos:
•
Any kind of meat with cheese, salsa and a few other toppings folded in a tortilla is a taco. In Tucson, you are never far from a purveyor of fine tacos. Indian Fry Bread: • Fry bread is a traditional staple of Tucson’s native Tohono O’odham tribe. It also makes a good snack. Spanish Rice: • Seasoned rice is an excellent accompaniment to Chimichangas, Fajitas, Tacos, or almost anything else it is served with. Flan • A Mexican dessert made of baked custard. Caramel is a popular topping. Apple Pie: • A delicious creation of sweetened apples baked into a pastry crust. Although it is a traditional American dessert, apple pie originated closer to Hong Kong than Tucson. Fried Ice Cream: • If you’re looking for a way to improve ice cream, try rolling it in crushed nuts and deep frying it.
Lessons Learned The class learned a great deal about collaboration with their fellow students, technical and logistical difficulties associated with video conferencing, and about the culture of students in another country. Following are some of the major lessons learned: • • • • • •
Preplanning is critical for success Both sites have be ready technically and logistically It is a major production to put on a first rate video conference. You don’t just turn on the machines Video conferencing is not plug and play Students in other countries have many of the same concerns as those in our own country There are more details involved than people want to get involved with or take responsibility for
Collaborative Projects Our class is project-centered and students in the class must work on team projects. Students select the topics and define the scope of the projects, as well as the deliverables. This is different than say a project in a database class, in which each team develops and implements a database schema, often all with the same DBMS. Second, students are provided with resources in the form of technology, literature, and sponsors that would otherwise be unavailable to them. Students are highly motivated to do well on their projects, because fifty percent of their final grade is based on the work and the results. Additionally we strongly encourage students to make use of collaborative computing technology to aide them in working on their projects and many have chosen to do just that. Some of the collaborative computing technology students have used to successfully help them complete their projects include GroupSystems©, VAX Notes, Lotus Notes, GSWeb, E-mail, and Microsoft Exchange. The projects are required to be viable beyond the scope of a single semester. We demand that the project be such that another team in a future semester of the class or
1060-345/98 $10.00 (c) 1998 IEEE
researchers within CMI be able to pick up where the class project ends. In fact many of the projects have lead to master’s projects, dissertation topics, and even commercial ideas. Several projects have actually spanned up to three semesters of continued positive results.
Sample Details of Group Projects All of the projects in our class have been in our opinion excellent, however we cannot provide details about each of them within this short paper. Following is a description of several projects from the class and an explanation of the results. some were great successes and others were practical failures; however in each case the students gained insight and knowledge about collaborative computing, unstructured problem solving and themselves, that they could not have read from book or heard about in a lecture. Further the instructors and other researchers learned a great deal from the experience of working with and sponsoring these students as they explored collaborative computing technology through practical experience.
Bi-directional Translator within GroupSystems© Tools This project deals with the question of whether people communicate better in their native language. Multiple GSS sessions were run with various language environments: Spanish only, English only, and both Spanish and English. Translation of comments was done in real time using a Spanish-English software translation program. Results were that over 75% of the subjects admitted they think in their native language, even though most have more than six year experience with the foreign language. This project was very interesting and has practical application beyond the classroom. Fiesta Bowl ’96: A GroupSystems Case Study This project involved the evaluation of the introduction, implementation, and analysis of GroupSystems© within a collaborative meeting environment for the Fiesta Bowl Committee. Originally the goal was to examine the amount of information that computer supported collaborative work groups take away and use after a meeting. The group soon realized that there are many hurdles and barriers to implementation. This group learned a great deal about interacting with a client, the difficulty of establishing buy-in, the importance of pre-planning, and the difficulties of group dynamics in electronic meetings through experience and discovery. GroupSystems for the Internet (GSI) The goal of this project was to explore the possibility of developing group support tools that would run through a browser over the world wide web. The group developed a shared editing prototype that replicated the Topic Commenter and Group Outliner tools from GroupSystems© for Windows. This project has been extended into a full blown system, called GroupSystems© Web and is the topic of a doctoral dissertation. Additionally work from this project led to the beginning of the development of Java-based collaborative tools for the Internet.
Aroma Disk Player and Cyberquest Software The project seeks to recreate some of the interactions that take place at face-to-face meetings: such as a handshake, a pat of the back, the smell of a hot cup of coffee, the handing off of a sheet of paper from one person to another, etc. This project looked, or should we say smelled, beyond the typical textual and graphical nature of collaborative systems toward incorporating other senses. Specifically the group analyzed and reviewed the Aroma Player and Cyberquest software. The idea is to extend the illusion of presence, created during video conferencing, to include additional senses beyond sight and hearing. (See Figure 1.)
Figure 1. Video conference illusion of presence.
At first there was excitement that the group might be able to use the “smells” in GSS sessions to observe how they might affect productivity; however when the product arrived there were several problems. First, the aroma disks contain oils that must be heated in order to spread the smell throughout a room. This makes things very messy. Another problem was that the scents were not very conducive to meeting productivity: chocolate, flowers, etc. Although the project was a failure from a technical standpoint the group researched the use of aromas and set the groundwork for potential future work in this area. This was one of the most interesting and unusual projects within the course.
Wireless LANs There were actually two attempts at wireless LAN projects, neither of which were successful. Both had the goal of getting GroupSystems© to run on a wireless LAN and then to run EMS sessions. The first project did an excellent job researching available technology, and CMI planned to purchase the wireless LAN. The problem was that the hardware and software did not arrive until the very end of the semester. Thus we learned that projects need to have resources available or easily obtainable at the start of the semester. The second project built on the first but soon found that the technology purchased for the first team was inadequate to support GroupSystems© and they actually went on to do some research into Personal Digital Assistants. Although both projects were failures they laid groundwork that has led to CMI purchasing new wireless LAN technology and successfully implementing it with both GroupSystems© for Windows and the GSWeb prototype. Virtual Reality Collaboration This project explored virtual reality in terms of collaborative technology and developed a virtual meeting environment. The virtual meeting environment simulated an office building and has an elevator, multiple meeting rooms, a receptionist to answer questions and provide directions,
1060-345/98 $10.00 (c) 1998 IEEE
and avatars for participants that could communicate through written messages and body language. In such 3D collaborative environments, people can be instantaneously transported from Tokyo to Paris, knock on the door of a remote office-mate’s office, and hold a meeting or work on a project. Experience shows it is much easier to remember physical locations than e-mail addresses. Participants could enter a virtual office building and be directed by a receptionist to the desired conference room, office, or auditorium ( see Figure 2.) Virtual worlds (offices) also allow visitors to socialize, to meet new people and to access external data. (See Figure 3.)
Figure 5.Virtual Small GSS Meeting Room
Figure 6. Virtual Legislative GSS Meeting Room Figure 2. Virtual Office Reception Desk
Figure 3. Virtual Office and Avatar Offices in these virtual worlds can have separate meeting rooms (See Figures 4, 5, & 6) equipped with group support systems software or may have libraries where workers and visitors search for information in the virtual presence of fellow searchers and helpers.
Cholla High Magnet School - Courtroom of the Future Several groups of students have worked on projects at the Cholla High Magnet School. Cholla is one a four schools in the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) to create a Magnet program. The Magnet program at Cholla has four themes, each of which fall under the umbrella title The Global Village: Intercultural/International Studies and Law-Related Education. With the help of collaborative computing student groups and CMI staff four different areas were created to support Cholla’s Magnet themes: The Global Courtroom (See Figure 7.), The Global Computer Law Library, The Global Career Center, and the Global Conferencing Center (See Figure 8.). CMI installed GroupSystems into the Law Library and the Conference Center. The furniture for the spaces was designed by Curt Madison, a University of Arizona Ph.D. Student in Communication, and a former student in the Collaborative Computing Class.
Figure 4.Virtual Meeting Room without GSS
Figure 7. Global Courtroom
1060-345/98 $10.00 (c) 1998 IEEE
seemed to us to be particularly promising. Following is a list of those projects: Web-based Collaborative Computing Case Study: Implementation and case study of the effect of GroupSystems for the World Wide Web on a subsidiary of a large telecommunications company and its vendors. Distributed Facilitation Project: A distributed facilitation study with a group of employees form a large dispersed university department.
Figure 8. Global Conference Center A group from the Collaborative computing class studied the use of GroupSystems as a tool for educational change through an empirical study comparing GSS supported brainstorming with conventional brainstorming in two different settings: traditional high-school classrooms and the Global Conferencing Center. The study results demonstrated that GSS technology can be a successful tool for improving education. A study has also been done to explore the potential benefits of GSS software on deliberations for mock jury trials. This study showed that although the GSS software did not increase the average amount of comments overall, as the researchers expected, it did lead to more equally distributed participation compared to traditional jury deliberations. In the very near future a partnership between TUSD and the courts, will enable real civil and criminal cases that pose no danger to the students or teachers to be held in the Cholla Global Courtroom. CMI researchers and Collaborative Computing student groups plan to continue to research the use of GSS technology for these real jury deliberations. Permission is being sought from the Arizona Supreme court to allow such research to take place.
Collaborative Computing in Education: The objective is to research a new technology that will enable the students of Cholla High School in Tucson, AZ and South Newton High School in Newton, MA to work together from remote locations through video conferencing. This is one of two groups working together. Explorations in Collaborative Information Retrieval: Explore a metaphor of Collaborative Information Retrieval, to design and implement a prototype of a system performing it. The Cholla High School Project: The objective is to research a new technology that will enable the students of Cholla High School in Tucson, AZ and South Newton High School in Newton, MA to work together from remote locations through video conferencing. This is one of two groups working together. Nationwide Technofluency Web Site Development: To create a prototype for 'Remote Certification' that will be used in the field of education, specifically the 'Technofluency project'. This project has two teams that are working with Howard Brown form the Anacostia School district in Washington D. C.
Sample Descriptions of Other Group Projects: Building an on-line Survey Tool: This project involved developing a Web-based server that would enable remote collection of survey data. The system was tested using the instructor evaluation process at the University of Arizona.
The collaborative computing class is still involved in the ongoing research at Cholla. As this paper was being written a new group of students is working at Cholla High School to link it up with its’ sister school South Newton High School, in Newton, MA, to enable students to work together from remote locations through video conferencing.
Collaborative Computing in Support of Small Business: This project focused on applying collaborative technology in the context of small business. The team developed requirements specifications for two collaborative tools to support small businesses.
We believe that the Cholla facility, and the soon to be connected Newton High School, will continue to provide an excellent venue for both Collaborative Computing student groups and CMI researchers to explore the use of collaborative technology in education and the legal system. We anticipate that students will learn a great deal from their interactions at Cholla that they could not learn from a lecture in a classroom at the university. This type of real world experience with collaborative technology will provide our students with unparalleled opportunity to gain hands on experience and learn through discovery.
Delegate: Group Support for International Diplomats: This project explored the use of GSS technology to support delegates at an international conference. Support enables diplomats to communicate effectively with their embassies during the conference.
Current Semester Projects Each semester, in our opinion, the projects seem to get better and better. At the writing of this paper we were just at the start of a new semester in which the projects
Courtroom of the Future Group Support Presentation: This project used collaborative computing technology to produce a compelling, aesthetically pleasing presentation that would help layers to persuade the jury during the closing argument of a court case.
Distributed GroupSystems for Windows: This project sought to investigate both the technical and behavioral issues associated with same-time different-place GSS sessions. The team developed software to provide connectivity between different meeting sites and then compared it with other methods for connecting multiple sites during a GSS session. Drag and Drop Categorizer Tool in Java: This project involved developing a drag-and-drop categorizer tool in Java that would run over the world wide web.
1060-345/98 $10.00 (c) 1998 IEEE
Evaluation of Group Text Editors for the Legal Profession: In this project a combined group of law and MIS students explored the features and functions of several group-writing products within the context of a team of lawyers jointly authoring legal briefs. Global Inc. IFIP Virtual Conference Support: This project developed the plan to provide 24 hour a day support for a global conference between the University of Arizona, The Technical University of Delft The Netherlands, and Curtin University Australia. Group-based Systems Analysis and Design: This project used GSS technology to support the analysis and design process for an accounting department on the campus at the University of Arizona. The system enabled the analysts and designers to get a clear understanding of the system requriements from end users than would have been possible by traditional means. Groupware Presentation Developer: This project studied the effects of combining groupware theory and technology to the presentation development process. The group developed a collaborative tool designed to facilitation the group presentation development process. Integrating OLE into Groupware: This project explored the functionality, requirements, and prospects for using Object Linking and Embedding technology within groupware tools by integrating OLE 2 functions into a group IDEF modeling tool. Shared database for Contacts with Lotus Notes: This project sought to develop a team-based scoreboard for a GSS meeting session that help participants to track information about the process of their session toward its goals as well as the cost of the session. One feature was a meeting meter that calculated the cost of the session up to the present moment based on the salaries of all the attendees. Voice Recognition Systems: This project explored the technology and behavioral issues associated with using voice recognition software with GSS technology. The team actually trained a voice recognition system for use by a facilitator and demonstrated wireless voice facilitation commands during a GSS session.
Conclusion The Collaborative Computing class has been a rewarding and yet sometimes harrowing experience. We feel that this class begins to add to the IS curriculum several of the elements that we would like to see in the future. We have provided opportunities for our students to gain technical, communication, thinking, and interpersonal skills while involving them directly in applied projects in which they experienced research, design, development, and implementation of collaborative computing technology first hand. The collaborative computing class has been a learning experience. Following are some of the lessons learned: • •
• •
It is a major task to line up project resources Project support personnel are critical • Technical Support • Specific Project Domain Support • Administrative Support Projects must get started early in the semester Students can learn how to structure and solve unstructured problems
• •
We can build teams and get them work together Students can gain skills through solving challenging problems
We feel that the MIS curriculum must more thoroughly involve students and faculty from related disciplines such as communication, library science, engineering and journalism in order to have an impact in the multi-disciplinary information systems field of the future. We have taken some first steps toward extending the MIS curriculum in these new directions and we hope that others will continue to do so in the future.
References 1. Alavi, M., and Keen, P.G.W. Business teams in an information age. Information Society, 6, 4, (1989), 179-195. 2. Berger, P.; Bullock, J.; Dooley, D.; Izzo, J.; Kanter, J.; Keen, P. G. W.; Kozar, K.; Senn, J.; Sprague, R.H., Jr.; White, J.; and Winski, D. Critical issues in IS management. I/S Analyzer, 30, 12, (1992), 1-14, 16. 3. Briggs, R. O. THE FOCUS THEORY OF GROUP PRODUCTIVITY AND ITS APPLICATION TO DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF ELECTRONIC GROUP SUPPORT SYSTEMS. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, (1994). 4. Briggs, R. O., Romano, Jr., N. C., & Brown, H. Learning to Think/Thinking to Learn: Electronic Support for the Problem Solving Educational Paradigm, Proceedings of Association of Management 10th Anniversary Conference, 10,2, (1992), 115-119. 5. Coleman, D., and Khanna, R. Groupware: Technology and Applications. Prentice-Hall, (1995). 6. Dennis, A. R.; Nunamaker, J. F. Jr.; and Vogel, D. R. GDSS Laboratory and Field Studies Closing The Gap. Working paper at the Center for the Management of Information, (1989). 7. Dennis, A. R.; Tuchi, J. J.; Vogel, D. R.; and Nunamaker, J. F. Jr. A Case Study of Electronic Meeting System Use. Working paper at the Center for the Management of Information, (April 1990), 1-33. 8. Dennis, A. R.; Nunamaker, J. F. Jr.; and Vogel, D. R. A Comparison of Laboratory and Field Research in the Study of Electronic Meeting Systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7, 3, (Winter 1990-91), 107-135. 9. Deutsch, M. An Experimental Study of the Effects of Cooperation and Competition Upon Group Process. Human Relations, 2, 2, (1949). 10. Engelbart, D. A Conceptual Framework for the Augmentation of Man's Intellect, (ed.), Vistas in Information Handling. London: Spartan Books, 1, (1963). 11. Fjermestad, J. H., and Hiltz, S. R. Experimental Studies of Group Decision Support Systems: An Assessment of Variables Studied and Methodology, Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, II, (1997), 45-53. 12. Gallupe, R. B.; DeSanctis, G.; and Dickson, G. W. The impact of computer support on group problem finding: an experimental approach. MIS Quarterly, 12, 2, (June 1988), 276-296. 13. Gannon, M. J. Organizational Behavior: A Managerial and Organizational Perspective. Boston: Little, Brown, (1979). 14. George, J. F. A Comparison of Recent GDSS Experiments, Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, (1989), 397-402. 15. Gray, P.; Aronofsky, J. S.; Kane, G.; Perkens, T. E.; and Helmer, O. The SMU Decision Room Project, DSS 81 Proceedings
1060-345/98 $10.00 (c) 1998 IEEE
of the First Conference on Decision Support Systems, (1981), 122129. 16. Grohowski, R.; McGoff, C.; Vogel, D.; Martz, W. B., Jr.; and Nunamaker, J.F., Jr. Implementing Electronic Meeting Systems at IBM: Lessons Learned and Success Factors. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 14, 4, (December 1990), 368-383. 17. Hiltz, S. R.; Turoff, M.; and Johnson, K. Experiments in Group Decision Making, 3: Disinhibition, Deindividuation, and Group Process in Pen Name and Real Name Computer Conferences, Decision Support Systems, 5(1989), 217-232. 18. Jessup, L. M., and Connolly, T. The Deindividuating Effects Of Anonymity on Automated Group Idea Generation, Working paper at the Center for the Management of Information (1989), 1-21. 19. Johansen, R. Groupware: Computer Support for Business Teams. New York: The Free Press, (1988). 20. Johansen, R. Leading Business Teams: Groupware Users Project 1989 First Year Results. Menlo Park, CA: Institute for the Future and Graphic Guides Incorporated, (1989). 21. Johansen, R., and Swigart, R. Upsizing the Individual in the Downsized Organization: Managing in the Wake of Reengineering, Globalization, and Overwhelming Technological Change. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley, (1994). 22. Johson-Lenz, P. and Johson-Lenz, T. Groupware: The process and impacts of design choices., in Kerr, E. B. and Hiltz, S. R.(eds.), Computer Mediated Communication Systems: Status and Evaluation. New York: Academic Press, (1982), 44-55.
33. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., and Briggs, R. O. Getting a Grip on Groupware, in Lloyd, P. (ed.), Groupware in the Twenty-first Century. Adamantine Press Limited, (1994). 34. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr.; Briggs, R. O.; and Mittleman, D. D. Electronic Meeting Systems: Ten Years of Lessons Learned, in Coleman, D., and Khanna, R. (ed.), Groupware: Technology and Applications. Prentice-Hall, (1995), 149-193. 35. Nunamaker, J. F., J.; Briggs, R. O.; Mittleman, D. D.; and Balthazard, P. B. Lessons from a Dozen Years of Group Support Systems Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field Findings. Journal of Management Information Systems / Winter 1996-97, 13, 3, (1997), 163-207. 36. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr.; Briggs, R. O.; Romano, N. C., Jr.; and Mittleman, D. D. The Virtual Office Work-Space: GroupSystems Web and Case Studies, Chapter 7-D, Coleman, D. (ed.), Groupware: Collaborative Strategies for Corporate LANs and Intranets. New York: Prentice Hall, (1997) in Press. 37. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr.; Vogel, D. R.; Heminger, A.; Martz, W. B., Jr.; Grohowski, R.; and McGoff, C. Experiences at IBM with Group Support Systems: A Field Study. Decision Support Systems: The International Journal, 5, 2, (June 1989), 183-196. 38. Post , B. Building the Business Case for Group Support Technology, Proceedings of the Twenty Fifth Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, Vol. IV, (January, 1992), 34-45. 39. Slavin, R. E. Effects of Student Teams and Peer Tutoring on Academic Achievement and Time on Task. Journal of Experimental Education, 48, (1980), 252-257.
23. Machiavelli, N. The Prince, (Circa 1500). 24. Martz, W. B., Jr.; Vogel, D. R.; and Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. Electronic Meetings Systems: Results From Field. Decision Support Systems, 8, (1992), 141-158.
40. Teichrow, D., and Hershey, E. A. III PSL/PSA: A ComputerAided Technique for Structure Documentation and Analysis of Information Processing Systems. IEEE Transactions of Software Engineering, SE-3, 1, (January 1977), 42-48.
25. Morrison, J.; Morrison, M.; and Vogel, D. R. Software to Support Business Teams, Working paper at the Center for the Management of Information, (1991), 1-28.
41. Turoff, M., and Hiltz, S. R. Computer Support for Groups versus Individual Decisions. IEEE Transactions on Communications, Special Issue on Office Automation, Com-30, 1, (1982), 82-90.
26. Morrison, J. DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A SYSTEM TO SUPPORT TEAM AND ORGANIZATIONAL MEMORY. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, (1992).
42. U.S. News & World Report. Best Graduate Schools in America, Exclusive Survey. U. S. News & World Report, (March 19, 1990).
27. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION OF INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEMS. Operations Research and Systems Engineering. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Institute of Technology, (1969).
43. U.S. News & World Report. Best Graduate Schools in America, Exclusive Survey. U. S. News & World Report, (April 29, 1991). 44. U.S. News & World Report. Best Graduate Schools in America, Exclusive Survey. U. S. News & World Report, (March 23, 1992).
28. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr.; Vogel, D. R.; Heminger, A.; Martz, W. B., Jr.; Grohowski, R.; and McGoff, C. Group Support Systems in Practice; Experience at IBM, Proceedings of the Twenty Second Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, II, (1989), 378-386.
45. U.S. News & World Report. Best Graduate Schools in America, Exclusive Survey. U. S. News & World Report, (March 21, 1994).
29. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr.; Briggs, R. O.; Mittleman, D. D.; Vogel, D. R.; and Balthazard, P. B. Lessons from a dozen years of group support systems research: A discussion of lab and field findings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 3, (Winter 199697), .
47. U.S. News & World Report. Best Graduate Schools in America, Exclusive Survey. U. S. News & World Report, (March 20, 1995).
30. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. A Methodology for the Design and Optimization of Information Processing Systems, in Cougar, J. D. and Knaap, R. W. (eds.), Systems Analysis Technologies. John Wiley, (1974),
49. U.S. News & World Report. Best Graduate Schools in America, Exclusive Survey. U. S. News & World Report, (March 10, 1997).
31. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr.; Dennis, A. R.; Valacich, J. S.; and Vogel, D. R. Information Technology for Negotiating Options for Mutual Gain. Management Science, 37, 10, (1991), 1325-1346. 32. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr.; Briggs, R. O.; and Romano, N. C., Jr. The Meeting Environment of the Future. GroupWare 93, (1993).
46. U.S. News & World Report.. Best Graduate Schools in America, Exclusive Survey. U. S. News & World Report, (March 22, 1993).
48. U.S. News & World Report. Best Graduate Schools in America, Exclusive Survey. U. S. News & World Report, (March 18, 1996).
50. Vogel, D. R.; Nunamaker, J. F., Jr.; Martz, W. B., Jr.; Grohowski, R; and McGoff, C. Electronic Meeting System Experience at IBM. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6, 3, (Winter 1989), 25-43. 51. Watson, R. T.; DeSanctis, G.; and Poole M. S. Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences. MIS Quarterly, 12, 3, (September 1988), 463-480.
1060-345/98 $10.00 (c) 1998 IEEE
