Social Software Engineering Social Software Engineering

Transcription

Seminar Sommersemester 2008
Social Software Engineering
Social Software / 25.4.2008
1
KIT – die Kooperation von Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH und Universität Karlsruhe (TH)
Web Trend Map 2008 ‐ © informationarchitects.jp
Helmuth Elsner ([email protected]‐karlsruhe.de)
(
@
)
Hans‐Jörg Happel ([email protected])
Asarnusch Rashid ([email protected])
Agenda

Distributed work
From Groupware to Social Software
Social Software & Web 2 0
Social Software & Web 2.0
Soziale Software in Enterprises
D i i S i lS f
Designing Social Software
Organisatorisches
2
Distributed work
3
Task complexity
Many tasks transcend the capability of a single human
“..this implies, that techniques for dividing effort and knowledge are fundamental to the creation of highly
knowledge are fundamental to the creation of highly complex things” [Baldwin & Clark]
Two points on spectrum of artifact complexity
Made
Made by a single person Æ
by a single person Æ division of labour
division of labour
Comprehended by a single person Æ division of knowledge and effort that go into design creation
4
Task/artifact complexity according to Baldwin and Clark
Complex
p
p
products
(Division of design and
production required)
Big products
(Division of labour)
Simple products
(can be constructed by
a single person)
5
e g computer
e.g.
computer, software
software, vehicle
e.g. house, bicycle
e.g. hammer, table
Task complexity – car example
Modern cars consist of ~20k single parts
Suppliers cover up to 80% of design and production [Mercer]
Suppliers cover up to 80% of design and production [Mercer]
6
Division of labour
Adam Smith: Pin making example
Increases productivity of work
Specialization
Saves time
Technological progress
Introduces dependencies among tasks Æ Requires coordination
7
Task dependencies

Classification

Tight vs. loose coupling
Routine vs. non‐routine
Synchronous vs. asynchronous
Th
Three types of task dependencies [Thompson]
t
ft kd
d i [Th
]

Pooled
– sharing of some resources from a common pool
– few coordination requirements
few coordination requirements
Sequential
– output of one process are input for another
– e.g. assembly line
Reciprocal
i
l
– tasks are mutually dependent
– e.g. "intensive technologies"
– high coordination effort
high coordination effort
[Crowston]
8
Coordination
Coordination can be defined as
“the
the process of managing dependencies between activities
process of managing dependencies between activities” [Malone]
Coordination mechanisms
C di i
h i

Standardization (requires stability and routinization)
Plans
Norms
Artifacts
Mutual adjustment / Communication
Mutual adjustment / Communication
Æ parallels between interdependence types and coordination
9
Communication
a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior
Communication
Communication may happen directly (face
may happen directly (face‐to‐face)
to face) or via media
10
Characteristics of collocated synchronous communication
Rapid feedback
Quick reaction on misunderstandings or confirmation
Multiple channels (voice, gesture…)
Provide redundancy for breakdown recovery and modulations
P id
d d
f b kd
d
d l i
Physical context
Allows for spatial references
Allows for spatial references
Allows to sense attention
Informal „hall
Informal hall“ time
time
Allows for social bonding
11
Communication media

12
Face2Face
Written communication (Documents, letters)
Telegraph/ Fax
Telegraph/‐Fax
Telephone
E M il
E‐Mail
WWW
Forums
Technical characteristics of media
Media richness
Number of senders/receivers
Availability of back channels
Log history
Log history
Space/Time matrix

Synchronous/asynchronous
Collocated/remote
[Dix]
13
Collocated vs. distributed teams/work
Collocated teams
Coworkers
Coworkers are in close physical proximity (< 30 meters)
are in close physical proximity (< 30 meters)
Teams have common space (meeting rooms, “water cooler”) and artifacts (e.g. whiteboards) for group interaction
Working in one room/workspace: War‐room or Working in one room/workspace: War room or “radical
radical collocation
collocation”
Distributed teams
Teams work at different locations or even time zones
Team members may never have met personally
Team members interact via (electronic) media / communication technology
14
Distributed work
Problems/Challenges

Reduced communication channels
Reduced
communication channels
Lack of informal contact
Lack of context L k ft t
Lack of trust
Lack of training/experience
Determinants of success

15
Common ground
Coupling of work / task interdependency
Coupling of work / task interdependency
Collaboration readiness
Collaboration technology readiness
From Groupware to Social Software
16
Computer‐supported cooperative work
CSCW deals with understanding social interaction, design implementation and evaluation of technical systems that
implementation and evaluation of technical systems that support social interaction (Gross & Koch)
„how collaborative activities and their coordination can be supported by means of computer systems“ (Carstensen & Schmidt supported by means of computer systems
(Carstensen & Schmidt
02)
G
Groupware is software, hardware and services to support i
ft
h d
d
i
t
t
groups [to achieve common goals]
Main property is not to isolate users but mutually inform them (co‐
existence, awareness) (Gross & Koch)
i
) (G
& K h)
Groupware functionality can be realized an own class of systems, but also embedded as „feature“ of other software
17
Goals of CSCW and groupware
Make [distributed] teams more efficient
Enable new ways of collaboration
Enable new ways of collaboration
18
History
Term „CSCW“ coined in 1984
International CSCW conference established in 1986
19
„Levels of interface“
20
Years
50s
60s‐70s
70s‐90s
80s
90s
00s
Interface
Hardware
Software
Terminal
Dialogue
Work setting
Task/Ubiqui‐
tous environment
Principal users
Engineers/Pro
grammers
Programmers
„End users“
„Users“
Groups of users
Distributed, ad‐hoc groups or teams
Aim
Help engineers maintain their machine
Help programmers develop systems
Present information on displays
Support the work of the user
Support work of organizations
Support team & project work
Trends
Biz

Outsourcing / Offshoring
Outsourcing
/ Offshoring
Product lifecycle, time‐to‐market
Diversification / customization
Division of labour / core competencies
/
p
Tech

21
PC at the workplace
p
IT & business processes
Internet
Technology standardization
Network bandwith
Groupware Examples

22
Multi‐user operating systems
Shared filesystems
h d fil
CVS
E Mail
E‐Mail
Lotus Notes
Workflow Systems
Workflow‐Systems
Intranet
Instant Messaging
Instant Messaging
Skype
Social Software (Blogs, Wikis)
( g,
)
Time/space matrix for communication media (Dix)
23
Functional classification
Awareness
Computer‐mediated communication (CMC)

Supports direct communication (E‐Mail, Bulletin Boards, Chat, Video)
Coordination

Workflow‐Management
– highly structured processes
– high frequency of iterations
Meeting‐ and Group‐Decision Support systems

Capture common understanding (Idea generation, Argumentation, Shared C
t
d t di (Id
ti
A
t ti
Sh d
drawing)
Shared applications and artifacts
Shared applications and artifacts

24
Support interaction with shared work objects (Desktop sharing, Shared editors, Shared calendards, Shared information)
Application areas

25
Meetings
Brainstorming
Design & Engineering (e.g. software engineering)
eLearning
Household (entertainment & gaming)
Household (entertainment & gaming)
eHealth
Social Software & Web 2.0
26
Web 2.0 as a hype
Characteristics of hypes…

Attention („everything that makes it into NY Times“)
Att
ti (
thi th t
k it i t NY Ti
“)
Rhetorics are important (sensational character, buzzwords)
Interest‐driven; many profiteers
yp
Legitimation
Hypes also occur in other areas
e.g. „Management‐fashions“
27
Definition by memes…
28
Definition by examples…
Wide definition

EE‐Mail
Mail
Instant Messaging, Skype
eBay, Amazon (Recommendations)
SMS
Narrow definition

29
Wikis (Wikipedia)
Social bookmarking (del.icio.us)
Social news (Digg)
Social news (Digg)
Video & Photo sharing (Youtube, Flickr)
Search (ask.com, Yahoo Clever)
Definition by visual appeal…

Cool websites
Missing vocal („flickr“)
Round edges
Bigger font sizes
Shadows
http://creatr.cc/creatr/
30
Definition by business model...

Advertising

Premium services

Flickr
Youtube (1,65 Billion $)
Facebook (240 Million $ / 15 Billion $)
Donations / Reputation

31
XING
Acquisition

Google Ads
Google Ads
Wikipedia
Blogs
Definition by comparison…

32
Web 1.0
DoubleClick
Ofoto
Akamai
mp3.com
B it
Britannica Online
i O li
personal websites
Evite
domain name speculation
do
a a e specu at o
page views
screen scraping
publishing
CMS
directories (taxonomy)
stickiness
Web 2.0
Google AdSense
Flickr
BitTorrent
Napster
Wiki di
Wikipedia
blogging
upcoming.org
search engine optimization
sea
c e g e opt
at o
cost per click
web services
participation
wikis
tagging ("folksonomy")
syndication
New
personalized, decentralized
tagging, community
P2P/decentralized
P2P/decentralized
community, free
it f
content
t t
dialog
aggregation
pay for participation
interoperability
flexibility, freedom
community, freedom
open content
[O‘Reilly + Völkel]
Definition: Web 2.0
Definition of Tim O‘Reilly: "Web
Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the 2 0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the
move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people applications that harness network effects
to get better the more people
use them.“
Tim Bernes‐Lee: Tim O'Reilly (2006-12-10). Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again
Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.
developerWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee (7-28-2006)
33
Social Software
Popularized by Clay Shirky in 2002
Design features
People‐centered
People centered
Open structure
Prosumer
– Content creation
– Structuring
– Incremental input (Comments, ratings)
Incremental input (Comments ratings)
Voluntary contributions and meritocracy
34
Social Software by comparison
Classical Software
Goal: Rise individual productivity
Task centric
Task centric
Pre‐structured
Mandatory usage
Transforming information
35
Social Software
Goal: Show and leverage relations among people
People
People‐centric
centric
Self‐organization
Voluntary participation
Producing information
Emergent structure is more important than individual
important than individual contribution
Web 2.0 historical view
Jürgen Schiller García (2006-09-21). Web 2.0 Buzz Time bar
36
The „read/write“ Web
Web 1.0
„Surfing“
Most content produced centrally be few people
centrally be few people
Creation of content was (technically) difficult
Web 2.0
TTwo‐way use of the web
f h
b
„User‐generated content“ / Prosumer
37
[Hinchcliffe]
Small contributions can go a long way
Community
Leverage emergent collective intelligence
g
Collect incremental contributions
Leverage the „long tail
tail“
[Anderson]
38
Design principles

39
Ease of use
Leverage network effects & user participation
Provide service APIs for syndication
Provide service APIs for syndication
Cooperation instead of control (social protocols)
S S&
SaaS & perpetual beta, driven by user feedback
lb
di
b
f db k
Social factors driving Web 2.0
Rising online literacy
Rising number of participants (network effects)
Rising acceptance due to usability
Individual benefit (reputation/self marketing, (reputation/self‐marketing
revenue)
40
Technical factors driving Web 2.0
Broadband access
Flatrates & mobile access
Sophisticated web technologies/toolkits
Desktop applications move to the web
41
Technical standards enable the Web
World Wide Web

Internet service using Web‐
g
Browser and
Web‐Server
Nodes which are connected by
hyperlinks (Hypertext)
hyperlinks (Hypertext)
Invented by Tim Bernes‐Lee in 1989
Governed and evolved by the W3C
(World Wide Web Consortium)
Three technical pillars
– HTTP (Protocol for client (
server communication)
– HTML (Hypertext markup language)
– URLs (Uniform resource ( f
locator)
42
Further standards

XML
RSS
JavaScript, AJAX
S
Semantic Web (RDF/OWL)
i
b(
/O )
APIs
….
Semantic Web
Major issues with the current web [Berners‐Lee]
The
The current web does not allow people to express their ideas in a common current web does not allow people to express their ideas in a common
language
The current web does not provide means to describe information such that machines can understand it
The Semantic Web is not a separate Web but an extension of the current one in which information is given well‐defined
current one, in which information is given well
defined meaning, better meaning better
enabling computers and people to work in cooperation. [Tim Berners‐
Lee]
Social Semantic Web
…subsumes developments, in which social interactions on the Web lead to the creation of explicit and semantically rich knowledge representations
the creation of explicit
and semantically rich knowledge representations“
…combines technologies, strategies and methodologies from the Semantic Web, Social Software and the Web 2.0.
[Gruber]
43
(
(Social) Semantic Web Vision
)
JJohnny
h
Depp
Frien
nds
Till see
eks pre
esent ffor
Chrisssie, wo
orth 20 €
Chrissie
Pirates of the
Carib. 2
Till
[Vrandecic]
14,95 €
44
Evolution of the Web
Web 1.0
everyone may publish information
Web 2.0 everybody can publish information (Blogs, Photos)
b d
bli h i f
i (Bl
Ph
)
everybody may connect information (Mashups)
Web 3.0 = Semantic Web
Web 3 0 = Semantic Web
everybody can connect information (on the fly)
– Which films have been rated by friends?
– Which nearby cinemas show films they liked?
– How do I get there by tram?
45
Web 2.0 Applications

46
Instant messaging (ICQ, Skype)
User comments and ratings (Amazon/eBay)
Blogs ( )
Blogs (…)
Social Tagging (Flickr, del.icio.us)
S i l
Social networks (Facebook, Xing)
k (F b k Xi )
Wikis (Wikipedia)
Second Life
…
Blog – Forms & Motivation
„Grassroots journalism“ – Everyone may publish
Forms

Personal blog (web diary)
Travel blog
Travel blog
Topic oriented blog
Corporate blogging
Motivation [Nardi 04]

47
„Document my life“
Commentaryy
Catharsis
Muse
Community forum
y
Self advertising
Blog – Key elements
Name and
description
Author(s)
Permalink
Chronological
entries („posts“)
with title & text
Tags
Comments
Feeds
48
Blogroll
Blog – Ecosystem
aka „Blogosphere“

49
Pings inform Weblog search engine upon new post
RSS subscribers receive new post via RSS reader
Other weblogs may comment and create trackbacks
Readers comment the post
Social Tagging
50
Social networks
51
Google Docs & Spreadsheets
52
Wiki on one slide

Wiki

Wiki‐Engine

53
“The simplest online database that could possibly work” [Cunningham]
Topic‐related site on the internet, which runs a wiki engine
Hyperlinked network of explicitly named and mutually connected pages (WWW in small)
Largest and most popular Wiki: Wikipedia
Largest and most popular Wiki: Wikipedia
Software required to run a wiki
>250 Wiki‐“Engines“ in different programming languages
Open source and commercial, for download and as a hosted service
Core features: change history and „simple“ wiki syntax
Wiki principles/philosophy
Anatomie eines Wikis
RSS
Bearbeiten
Login/watchlist
Diskussionsseite
Seiten‐URL
Historie
= Titel
Seiten‐Inhalt
L tt Ä d
Letzte Änderungen
Wiki syntax/
Verlinkung
Themenfokus
54
Offenheit
Transparenz
Flexibilität
Reifung
Wiki usage
Public Wikis

Wikipedia(s)
City wikis (e.g. Stadtwiki Karlsruhe)
Special interest wikis (e.g. Star Trek Wiki, Biblewiki, …)
C ll b ti b k iti
Collaborative book writing
– Handbook of Collective Intelligence (http://scripts.mit.edu/~cci/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Pag
e))
Open Source Project Documentation
SSE08 Seminar ;‐)
Private Wikis
Enterprise Wikis
Enterprise Wikis
Personal Wikis
55
History

First ideas of free encyclopedia in the 1990s

March 2000: Jim Wales and Larry Sangers launch Nupedia

“a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language”

January 2001: launch of Wikipedia as a spin‐off („fun project“)

March 2001: Additional language versions

January 2002: Switch to MediaWiki engine (Phase II/III)

March 2002: Sanger resigns as „chief organizer“

June 2003: Creation of the Wikimedia Foundation

2006/2007: Larry Sangers Citezendium (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page)
56
Created March 2000
Free, web based encyclopedia
,
y p

57
Everyone can read
Expert authors and editors
Extensive formal peer review
Until January 2001: 22 articles
Closed in September 2003 (24
Closed in September 2003 (24 completed articles, 74 were in progress)
Created January 2001
Free, web based encyclopedia

Everyone can edit
No expert authors and editors
No extensive formal peer review
No extensive formal peer review
Until January 2001: 31 articles
Until January 2002: 20,342 articles in 17 languages, (17,307 ti l i 17 l
(17 307
in English)
Growth of the Wikipedia
58
Year
Articles
English Articles
Languages
2002
20 342
20,342
17 307
17,307
17
2003
133,129
98,475
25
2004
420,562
189,124
52
2005
1,311,697
438,289
162
2006
3,100,360
893,237
197
11/2006
5 565 830
5,565,830
1 462 910
1,462,910
250
Wikipedia users
2.7 Mio registered users
About 70,000 contributors
2% (1 400) make 73 4% of all edits
2% (1,400) make 73.4% of all edits
Most content from wide user base
M
f
id
b
Clean up / “gardening” by small group
[English Wikipedia, Swartz]
59
Wikipedia quality
Main issues

Everyone can edit (vandalism, wrong information)
No special status for experts
Hard to discover factual errors
Hard to discover factual errors
Repeated facts (e.g. big number of lists)
Several studies by different media
e.g. Nature study on quality
g
y
q
y
4 / 3 error rate Wikipedia / Encyclopedia Britannica
Controversial
60
Behind the curtain

Communities

D fi d
Defined processes

61
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval
Defined standards

groups of people taking responsibility for a domain
– e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry
Individual users taking care for articles
Styleguides
Article quality
Further social and technical practices
Soziale Software in Enterprises
62
Success stories
„This company runs on wikis.
This company runs on wikis “
Shashi Seth, Google Inc. (Wikisym 2005)
63
Professional applications of Wikis
Internal

64
IIntranet/Knowledge management
t
t/K
l d
t
Meeting protocols
Glossary
Project‐Documentation
Manuals, FAQs, QM
Yellow Pages
Inventory management
External

Extranets
Service portals
Service portals
Documentation for experts (e.g. SDKs)
Collaboration in cross‐organizational teams
Advantages of Wikis for the enterprise

65
Web‐based
Flexible
l bl
Single‐point of information / Portal function
Enables collaboration and participation across teams and projects
Enables collaboration and participation across teams and projects
Low entry barriers
Scalable and extensible
Scalable and extensible
Gründe für den Einsatz leichtgewichtiger Kollaborationswerkzeuge

Steigender Bedarf für die Unterstützung schwach strukturierter Prozesse
Auslagerung
Auslagerung standardisierter Produktionsschritte und Dienstleistungen
standardisierter Produktionsschritte und Dienstleistungen
Unternehmen differenzieren sich durch die Erfüllung von Spezialanforderungen und kundennahe Dienstleistungen
Wertschöpfende Tätigkeiten verlagern sich in Bereiche mit einem hohen Anteil unstrukturierter, wissensintensiver und kreativer Prozesse
k i
i
i
i
dk
i
P

Neue Kollaborationsformen erschweren die Entwicklung einer „gemeinsamen R lität“
Realität“
Organisationen und Kompetenzen sind häufig global verteilt
Ad‐hoc Kooperationen für kurze Projektphasen
Kurzlebige Produkt‐
Kurzlebige Produkt und Technologiezyklen
und Technologiezyklen

Produktivität moderner Organisationen hängt stark von der Effizienz ihrer Wissensarbeiter ab
Wissensarbeiter ab
Technologischer Wandel bringt I&K Technologien an jeden Arbeitsplatz
Klassische Wissensmanagementkonzepte sind personalintensiv und langwierig
66
Tacit interactions
Companies focus on core competencies

Standard processes are outsources
Standard
processes are outsources
Complex processes remain
„More problem solvers and fewer doers“
[Johnson 2005]
67
Suitability of wikis
Well suited

Factual / technical content
Factual
/ technical content
Inherently low structured content
Low differences in power and
Low differences in power and compentency among users
Shared goals and vision
Creativity and innovation focus
Creativity and innovation focus
Less suited

68
Strong content structure, which Strong
content structure which
is easy to model Æ databases
Time‐related content Æ
Forums, mailinglists
Personally affected content Æ
Blogs, Forums
Clear role differences among g
authors and readers Æ CMS
Focus on efficiency of routine processes Æ workflow
Social software compared
69
Personal data
Shared aggregate
Shared aggregate
Shared data
Highly structured
(Meta‐)Data
(Meta
)Data
Social Tagging & Bookmarking
Flickr, Del.icio.us, ...
Collaborative databases
Google Base / Google Calendar
LLow structured
d
Text + Hyperlinks
E‐Mail, Forums, Blogs
l
l
phpBB, Technorati
Wikis
k
Mediawiki, Socialtext
Advantages and risks

Social Software values

Advantages

Access customers directly and unfiltered (e.g. german chancellors podcast)
Establish and visualize relationships
Bundle and focus knowledge
g
Establish open communication / feedback cycles
Risks

70
Freedom
Empowerment
Low‐structured environments
Low adoption rate/Lazyness
d i
/
Data proliferation and chaos / Vandalism and spam
Dissent and micropolitics
Designing Social Software
71
Design Issues

72
Social issues
Technical issues
Legal issues
Legal issues
Economical issues
Social issues
Adoption
„Simply installing a telephone line won‘t make people talk“
Trust
Motivation
Cultural issues
73
Technical issues

74
Access rights
Security
Networking (Client/Server Peer2Peer)
Networking (Client/Server, Peer2Peer)
Concurrency / locking
R ii
Revision control / history / audit
l / hi
/ di
Undo / Transactions
Pub/Sub / Notification
Legal issues
Ownership/Copyright
Derived works
c.f. Open Source & Creative Commons
75
Economical issues
Revenue models
Incentives
Ecosystems
76
Groupware challenges (1) [Grudin 94]
Disparity of contributors and beneficiaries
Additional effort for some users to add information
e.g. group calendar, file share, presence awareness, annotation…
annotation
Often managers are profiting
Critical mass
M
Most groupware is only useful when a certain number of t
i
l
f l h
t i
b
f
users participates
e.g. choice of instant messager, calendar…
e.g. choice of instant messager, calendar…
77
Groupware challenges (2)
Social, political and motivational factors
Groupware
Groupware often deals with critical, „soft
often deals with critical soft“ information, that people information that people
do not want to make explicit
e.g. presence awareness, meeting priority
Exception handling
Human experience about how processes work is hard to capture
Infrequently used features
G
Groupware should by definition used seldomly (reduce expensive h ld b d fi iti
d ld l ( d
i
coorination by decoupling work)
78
Difficult to evaluate
Task analysis for groups is more difficult than for single users
Evaluation takes longer (due to usage frequency)
Breakdown of intuitive decision making
Manangers
Manangers decide for software that is good for them
decide for software that is good for them
They underestimate the downside in the case of groupware
Similar for developers, who are used to design single user p ,
g
g
applications
79
Managing acceptance as a challenge for developers
developers job does not end with „shipping the product“
product is only a success, if it improves group performance Æ not only determined by technical features / not predictable
80
The case of Lotus Notes (1)
Research by [Orlikowski 94]
Watch groupware (Lotus Notes) introduction at consulting company
Research question: what factors influence how the groupware is introduced and used?
Five month observation
90 interviews
Document review
Doc ment re ie
Observation of meetings, training classes and work sessions
81
Setting
„Alpha Corporation“
Global consulting company
Managers found that IT must be used more effectively
Managers found that IT must be used more effectively
CIO learned about Lotus Notes
CIO learned about Lotus Notes
CIO perceived it a „breakthrough system which might create a revolution“
His sponsorship spured high interest and persuation
Actual advancement was more slowly
82
Results
Two major influences for failure were identified
Peoples interpretation of the new system
– Cognition or mental models about technology and their work
Structural properties of the organization
– Such as policies and norms
83
Peoples interpretation of the new system
p
p
y
Communication about notes
No explicit information about purpose (information through the press)
Users ware unclear about what is does
Training
underemphasized
p
technical focus, rather stressing personal use than new possibilities
84
Structural properties of the organization
p p
g
Reward systems
Billable hours vs. time required for training/experimentation and usage
Policies and procedures
Confidality and control
Confidality and control
Firm culture and work norms
Firm culture and work norms
Competetive enviroment
85
IT in Organizations
What is the dependency between information technology and organizational strucutes? [Markus und Robey 1988]
Technological imperative
Organizational imperative
Emergent perspective
86
Socio‐technical systems
Organization
work/tasks
(Coordination)
T h l
Technology
What kind of task
dependencies exist?
People
How much distance?
What kind of situation does
technology support?
87
Process design principles
Understand users & their context
Design for „wicked problems“
Flexibility in process and design (evolutionary)
Let end users participate
Do not use out‐of‐the‐box standard Software Engineering processes
Do not use out of the box standard Software Engineering processes
Manage acceptance
Manage acceptance
just creating a technical solution is not enough
88
Organisatorisches
89
Seminar‐Infrastruktur
Ilias (nur Adminstrativa)
https://ilias.rz.uni‐karlsruhe.de/
https://ilias rz uni‐karlsruhe de/
Seminar‐Mailingliste
[email protected] (neu)
Seminar‐Wiki
Seminar Wiki
http://sse08.pbwiki.com
Seminar‐Blog
l
http://sse08.wordpress.com
Bookmarks
http://www.bibsonomy.org/tag/sse08
Tag „sse08“
„sse08
Tag
90
Zeitplan

91
18.4. Seminar‐Einführung
21.4. Festlegung der persönlichen Themenwünsche
25.4. Einführungsvorlesung und Themenfestlegung
30.4. Vortrag Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten
Ende Mai/Anfang Juni: Praxisvorträge
30.5. Zwischenbesprechung
16.6. Abgabe der Präsentationsfolien
27.6. Abschlußpräsentationen
7.7. Abgabe der schriftlichen Ausarbeitung
Themenzuordnung

Grundlagen
Anreiz‐ und Motivationstheorien (Mattes; Betreuer Elsner)

[Social Software] Engineering]

Genres sozialer Software: Vergleich und Auswahl (Teske; Betreuer Happel)
Einführung und strategischer Umgang mit Sozialer Software (Frey; Betreuer Rashid)
(
)
Adoption von Sozialer Software im Unternehmen (Kriegler; Betreuer Elsner)
Wiki‐Wucherung und Gardening (Pfrang; Betreuer Happel)
Social [Software Engineering]
Design for contribution: Anreizsysteme zur Wissensakquisition (Eul; Betreuer Happel)
Micro‐Feedback (Nolinski; Betreuer Elsner)
Perpetual beta und kontinuierliches Feedback: Von "Wicked problems" zur Wissenschaft der Lösungsgestaltung (Botzenhart; Betreuer Happel)
Enterprise Mash‐ups als User Innovation Toolkits (Frietsch/Gerhardt; Betreuer Happel/Rashid)

Anwendungen
Enterprise portals (Mehl/Pfohl; Betreuer Elsner)
92
Fazit
Danke für eure Aufmerksamkeit!
Fragen?
g
Nächste Termine
h
30.4. (Mittwoch 15h; FZI Raum New York):
Vortrag Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten
Nach Vereinbarung: Individuelles Treffen mit dem Betreuer
Nach Vereinbarung: Individuelles Treffen mit dem Betreuer
8.5. (Donnerstag): United Internet Nerd‐Night
30.5. Zwischen‐ bzw. Praxisvorträge
93