Gu and MaherUniversity of Sydney

Ning@design-ning.net

Collaborative Tools in CSCW

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.

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).

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.

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).

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).

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.

Tools for Synchronous Communication

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Virtual Workplace - Avatar

• A common paradigm for representing a person’s 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.

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.

Virtual Workplace – Application Share

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

Virtual Workplace – Collaboration by Building

• Participants can build 3D environments together.

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 country’s 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.

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, Bentley’s Project Wise

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.

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.org/project/

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 System’s Project Bank (Bentley, 1999). Cyco Software AutoManager Workflow 6.1 (Cyco, 2000). Cimmetry Systems’ AutoVue Professional (Cimmetry Systems, 2000). Adaptive Media’s Envision (Adaptive Media, 1999). ThePigeonHole (ThePigeonHole, 1999). Cubus’ ReviewIt (Cubus, 1999). Blueline Online’s ProjectNet (Blueline Online, 1999). Emerging Solutions’ AdvantageNet (Emerging Solutions, 1999). Meridian Project System’s Prolog (Meridian Project Systems, 1999). Framework Technologies’ ActiveProject (Framework Technologies, 2000). Deltek’s Project Workplace (Deltek, 2000). Bidcom (Bidcom, 2000). Open Text’s LiveLink 8 (Open Text, 1999). Buzzsaw’s ProjectPoint (Buzzsaw, 2000).

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.

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

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

Adaptation of Collaboration Tools by the AEC Industry

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

Resistance to the Adaptation

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

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 team’s 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 don’t 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