Social, individual and technological issues for groupware calendar systems

ABSTRACT

Designing and deploying groupware is difficult. Groupware evaluation and design are often approached from a single perspective, with a technologically-, individually-, or socially-centered focus. A study of Groupware Calendar Systems (GCSs) highlights the need for a synthesis of these multiple perspectives to fully understand the adoption challenges these systems face. First, GCSs often replace existing calendar artifacts, which can impact users calendaring habits and in turn influence technology adoption decisions. Second, electronic calendars have the potential to easily share contextualized information publicly over the computer network, creating opportunities for peer judgment about time allocation and raising concerns about privacy regulation. However, this situation may also support coordination by allowing others to make useful inferences about ones schedule. Third, the technology and the social environment are in a reciprocal, co-evolutionary relationship: the use context is affected by the constraints and affordances of the technology, and the technology also co-adapts to the environment in important ways. Finally, GCSs, despite being below the horizon of everyday notice, can affect the nature of temporal coordination beyond the expected meeting scheduling practice.

REFERENCES

• 1: David Beard , Murugappan Palaniappan , Alan Humm , David Banks , Anil Nair , Yen-Ping Shan, A visual calendar for scheduling group meetings, Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, p.279-290, October 07-10, 1990, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/99332.99361]
• 2: Susan F. Ehrlich, Social and psychological factors influencing the design of office communications systems, Proceedings of the SIGCHI/GI conference on Human factors in computing systems and graphics interface, p.323-329, April 05-09, 1987, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
• 3: Susan F. Ehrlich, Strategies for encouraging successful adoption of office communication systems, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), v.5 n.4, p.340-357, Oct. 1987 [doi>10.1145/42196.42198]
• 4: Ellen Francik , Susan Ehrlich Rudman , Donna Cooper , Stephen Levine, Putting innovation to work: adoption strategies for multimedia communication systems, Communications of the ACM, v.34 n.12, p.52-63, Dec. 1991 [doi>10.1145/125319.125322]
• 5: Irene Greif, The user interface of a personal calendar program, Proc. of the NYU symposium on user interfaces on Human factors and interactive computer systems, p.207-222, November 1984, New York, United States
• 6: Jonathan Grudin, Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluation of organization of organizational interfaces, Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, p.85-93, September 26-28, 1988, Portland, Oregon, United States [doi>10.1145/62266.62273]
• 7: Grudin, J. & Palen, L. (1995). Why Groupware Succeeds: Discretion or Mandate? Proc. of European CSCW (ECSCW'95), H. Marmolin, Y. Stmdblad, K. Schmidt (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 263-278.
• 8: Kelley, J.F. & Chapanis, A. (1982). How Professional Persons Keep Their Calendars: Implications for Computerization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55, 241-256.
• 9: Christine M. Kincaid , Pierre B. Dupont , A. R. Kaye, Electronic calendars in the office: an assessment of user needs and current technology, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), v.3 n.1, p.89-102, Jan. 1985 [doi>10.1145/3864.3868]
• 10: Mackay, W.E. (1990). Users and Customizable Software: A Co-Adaptive Phenomenon. Dissertation, Sloan School of Management. Cambridge, ~L~t, MIT.
• 11: M. Lynne Markus , Terry Connolly, Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the adoption of interdependent work tools, Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, p.371-380, October 07-10, 1990, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/99332.99368]
• 12: Jane N. Mosier , Susan G. Tammaro, When Are Group Scheduling Tools Useful?, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, v.6 n.1, p.53-70, Apr 1, 1997 [doi>10.1023/A:1008684204655]
• 13: Brad A. Myers, A brief history of human-computer interaction technology, interactions, v.5 n.2, p.44-54, March/April 1998 [doi>10.1145/274430.274436]
• 14: Orlikowski, W. (1992). The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations. Organization Science 3(3), 398-427.
• 15: Leysia Ann Palen, Calendars on the new frontier: challenges of groupware technology, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, 1998
• 16: Payne, S.J. (1993). Understanding Calendar Use. Human Computer Interaction 8(2), 83-100.
• 17: Schwartz, B. (1968). The Social Psychology of Privacy. American Journal of Sociology 73(6), 741-752.
• 18: Zerubavel, E. (1981). Hidden Rhythms: ScJhedules and Calendars in Social Life. Univ. of Chicago Press.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.4 COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY
      K.4.4 Electronic Commerce
          Subjects: Distributed commercial transactions

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces
          Subjects: Computer-supported cooperative work

General Terms:
Design, Human Factors

Keywords:
CSCW, calendars, diaries, ethnography, groupware calendar systems, meeting scheduling, sociotemporality, time