Toward a theory-driven taxonomy of groupware Umer Farooq, Mark K. Singley, Peter G. Fairweather, and Richard B. Lam IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
[email protected] su.edu, {ksingley, p fairwea, rb lam}@us.ib m.com ABSTRACT Groupware supports groups. Therefore, it seems natural t o derive a taxonomy of groupware from social psychology and theories of group processes. Our work toward a psychologically-driven taxonomy can reveal new CSCW requirements, identify evaluative criteria for groupware, and empower designers to consider more user-centered design tradeoffs.
Keywords Taxonomy, groupware, social psychology, group theory.
1. INTRODUCTION A taxonomy for groupware can provide a communicative mechanism for designers to exchange ideas through a common nomenclature. Prior work has proposed groupware taxonomies. Ellis et al. [4] proposed two taxonomies: time and space, where groupware is classified along dimensions of same or different time and place; and application level, where categories of groupware functionality emerge from existing systems (also see [15]). These taxonomies rely on a tool-centered classification that does not consider the primary function of groupware—to support groups.
2. TOWARD A TAXONOMY We believe a user-centered (user taken as a collective, i.e. group) taxonomy for groupware can emerge from the social psychology literature on group theory. Our work is very much in progress; here are some taxonomic elements we have identified so far. Group Functions As summarized by Steiner [17], Hackman [8], and McGrath [10], the two primary functions of groups are to complete group projects and fulfill member needs, and as a secondary function, to maintain system integrity. The goals of groupware should be no different. Whether face-toface or distributed, synchronous or asynchronous, groupware should support, in some way, one of the broader three functions listed above; how it supports them is a later issue that can be determined by various factors such as the timespace dimensions. We believe these three group functions comprise a part of the taxonomy. Completing group projects McGrath and Tschan [11] argue that completing group projects entails three levels of group action: strategic planning (acceptance and modification of group’s projects, and resource allocation), operational p l a n n i n g (structuring of process by which group will execute projects), and execution. Fulfilling member needs Based on Moreland and Levine’s group socialization model [13], Arrow et al. [1] propose that members have varying needs for affiliation, achievement, power, and resources and also have different expectations about which of those needs will be met by their participation in a group.
Group Life Tuckman and Jensen [18] conceptualize group life by five logically ordered stages that have temporal boundaries: f o r m i n g (orientation), s t o r m i n g (conflict), norming (cohesion), performing (task performance), and adjourning (metamorphosis). Each stage entails different types of group support. For example, groupware to support forming may provide means for establishing common ground [3] whereas groupware to support adjourning may provide means for successful dissolution of the group or smooth transformation into another social entity [1]. As we identify taxonomic elements like the ones above, we also need to consider how a groupware taxonomy can inform “good” design. Our proposal is that such a taxonomy can be a foundation for claims analysis [16] in which design tradeoffs for groupware features are elicited. For instance, if a groupware system (e.g. workflow system) has a feature (e.g. synchronous chatting) that promotes a taxonomic element {y} (e.g. fulfilling member needs for affiliation b y interacting via computer-mediated communication), claims analysis can identify that can also affect another taxonomic element {z} (e.g. execution of group projects) that entails a possible design tradeoff (e.g. chatting may socially bond the group but may decrease overall performance i n executing group project). A taxonomy, based on group theories that regard group process variables as interdependent and dynamic, can then help specify groupware features (such as ) and instantiate their positive and negative impacts (such as positive impact on {y} but negative impact on {z}) as design rationale [12]. Thus, a claims analysis perspective can draw on such a taxonomy t o provide a rich ontology of possible group influences from which initial groupware requirements may be gleaned.
3. POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS Given that design of groupware is predicated upon the needs of groups, our proposed taxonomy can then potentially reveal new CSCW requirements. With respect to the primary group functions outlined above, most groupware has focused more on supporting completion of group projects and less on fulfilling member needs. This is evident from a cursory observation of CSCW literature (e.g. application-level taxonomy [4]; [7]) where the focus is on the types of applications (message systems, multi-user editors, computer conferencing, etc)—the requirement to fulfill member needs is left as an implicit component in these applications. One reason for groupware designers not to focus on fulfilling member needs could be attributed to the mismatch of goals of CSCW research with those of social psychology: the former is primarily an engineering discipline where the dominant goal is problem-solving, whereas the latter is a behavioral science whose goal is to determine the causes of social phenomena [9]. Even so, social psychology literature on group theory can inform design. As an example, consider Bales’ [2] description of fulfilling member needs as a continual and dialectic interplay between task (completing group project) and socio-emotional needs (need for
affiliation). As groups pursue their tasks, they neglect socioemotional concerns. These needs build up as a consequence of that neglect, and eventually, the group must turn to its fulfillment via socio-emotional behaviors. This produces a neglect of task needs and the cycle continues. Bales’ cycle provides elements to our taxonomy (completing group tasks and socio-emotional needs) on which if our claims analysis schema is applied, we note that supporting one element through groupware will result in a tradeoff with the other. This cyclical phenomenon and our claims analysis then informs designers to acknowledge that completing group projects and fulfilling member needs are not separable, and further, groupware may fail if their inter-dependency i s ignored. As another example, it has been shown that the ultimate quality of group work depends heavily on how the group is initially formed [11], the strategic planning stage, and on what opportunities are available for social integration and grounding prior to productive work [1, 3]. This echoes the need for groupware to incorporate social support mechanisms that afford an optimal interplay with completing group projects. In distance work, this need for establishing common ground has been highlighted as a prescribed requirement for successful group performance [14]. In addition to identifying new requirements, our proposed taxonomy can likewise be used to identify new evaluative criteria for groupware. McGrath [10] notes that although we (designers) tend to focus on a group’s production function in the performing stage of a group’s life, other activities take place (e.g. forming, storming, norming, adjourning). Beneficial or adverse consequences in other stages can outweigh this production function and can eventually determine acceptance or rejection of groupware. For instance, lack of support for exception handling [6] such as conflict resolution in a workflow system may lead to the failure of such a system despite its overarching improvement in group performance. In fact, similar to our proposal for a taxonomy and its derived benefits, Grudin [7] recently used McGrath’s classification of group functions to identify a “return o n investment” criterion for organizational adoption of groupware. A new, more group-centric kind of taxonomy can empower designers to consider more user-centered design tradeoffs. These tradeoffs can provide fodder for a principled process of doing claims analysis. Consider a group conversation system, Babble, that graphically indicates level of engagement for each participant by monitoring their computer-mediated interactions [5]. This affords social translucence by providing visibility, awareness, and accountability for conversation participants. In the language of our fledgling taxonomy, social translucence attempts t o fulfill need for achievement (through public acknowledgement of contributions) and also need for affiliation (with an awareness of others’ activities, one has more opportunities for group interaction). But group members have varying, and sometimes conflicting, needs and expectations for achievement and affiliation in a group [1]. For example, a group member may wish to remain anonymous (i.e. not be visible, not evoke awareness, and not be held accountable) for a contribution that may generate negative group feedback. Using claims analysis, this design tradeoff for an artifact feature (social translucence) was prompted by considering individual differences and varying needs for taxonomic elements of achievement and affiliation.
As an extension to social translucence, we can now better articulate design rationale to acknowledge the value of social opaqueness and a possible requirement for the system to afford user-specified control in the degree of social translucence as group members see fit.
4. CONCLUSION Social psychology provides a rich body of theory about groups; however, researchers and developers in HCI and CSCW have rarely taken advantage of this trove of empirical phenomena and research [9]. To disentangle ourselves from “disciplinary inbreeding” as Kraut puts it, we are hoping to develop a taxonomy for groupware informed by social psychology literature. We hope to harness ideas from the CSCW community to develop this taxonomy in an attempt t o shift perspectives towards a more theory-driven and usercentered view of groupware.
5. REFERENCES [1] Arrow, H., McGrath, J.E., and Berdahl, J.L. Small Groups as
Complex Systems: Formation, Coordination, Development, and Adaptation. Sage Publications, 2000. [2] Bales, R.F. The equilibrium problem in small groups. In T.C. Parsons, R.F. Bales, and E.A. Shils (Eds.), Working papers in the theory of action, Free Press, 1951, 111-161. [3] Clark, H.H. Using language. Cambridge University Press, 1996. [4] Ellis, C.A., Gibbs, S.J., and Rein, G.L. Groupware: Some Issues and Experiences. CACM, 34, 1 (January 1993), 39-58. [5] Erickson, T. and Kellogg, W.A. Social Translucence: An Approach to Designing Systems that Support Social Processes. ACM TOCHI, 7, 1 (March 2000), 59-83. [6] Grudin, J. Groupware and Social Dynamics: Eight Challenges for Developers. CACM, 37, 1 (January 1994), 92-105. [7] Grudin, J. Return on Investment and Organizational Adoption. Proceedings of CSCW, 2004, In Press. [8] Hackman, J.R. The design of work teams. In J.W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983, 315-342. [9] Kraut, R.E. Applying Social Psychological Theory to the Problems of Group Work. In J.M. Carroll (Ed.), HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2003, 325-356. [10] McGrath, J.E. Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984. [ 1 1 ]McGrath, J.E. and Tschan, F. Temporal Matters in Social Psychology: Examining the Role of Time in the Lives of Groups and Individuals, Washington, DC: APA, 2004. [12] Moran, T.P. and Carroll, J.M. (Eds.) Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996. [ 1 3 ]Moreland, R. and Levine, J. Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual-group relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 1982, 137-192. [14] Olson, G. and Olson, J. Distance Matters. HCI, 15, 2000, 139-179. [15] Reinhard, W., Schweitzer, J., Völksen, G., and Weber, M. CSCW Tools: Concepts and Architectures. IEEE Computer, 27, 5 (May 1994), 28-36. [16] Rosson, M.B. and Carroll, J.M. Usability Engineering: ScenarioBased Development of Human-Computer Interaction. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2002. [ 1 7 ]Steiner, I.D. Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press, 1972. [18] Tuckman, B. and Jensen, M. Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 1977, 419-427.
