Collaborative Tools in CSCW
Gu and Maher
University of Sydney
Ning@design-ning.net
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.projectmanagement-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



Accountability:



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
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