| Groupware is often examined on the dimensions of time and place; ad-hoc vs. planned collaboration introduces a new dimension. |
A common framework for examining groupware is time and place: same time – same place, same time – different place, different time – same place, different time – different place. We introduce a new dimension: how planned is the interaction in the groupware?
Some collaboration is formal. For example, when you phone support from a software vendor, you expect an infrastructure: an 800 number (or 900), "trained operators standing by", a way to escalate unresolved problems.
Ad-hoc collaboration can be an effective alternative. Usenet is the prototypical example. There are thousands of newsgroups, such as comp.sys.mac.programmer, where you can post questions and answers. There’s no charge (beyond the cost of getting on the network), but there’s no guarantees about the answers you get.
Ad-hoc collaboration raises several issues:
- Stake. Without a formal mechanism, nobody has a direct financial stake in helping you. (They may do so out of goodness or a desire for reputation.)
- Attention. There are thousands of newsgroups. Many newsgroups have hundreds of messages a day. Your question may have been answered already, but it can be hard to find that out. For better or worse, Usenet is a democratic medium, and your question or answer has no particular reason to stand out.
- Authority and reputation. It can be hard to know who is answering your question, and to know if that answer is right. If you follow a group for a while, you will form opinions about who does or doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Reputation can become important.
- Anonymity. The web allows anonymity. You may not want people to know who is asking a question. It can be hard to get this quality in formal support, where you may have to identify yourself just to get charged for the help.
- Buzz/Community. Ad-hoc groups allow a product to generate "buzz" – the sense that the users are a group of real people who are going somewhere great. You can get each other excited, or bring each other down.
- Serendipity. A side-effect of the volume of newsgroups is that you have chances for serendipity. You’ll often run across something to help you with a problem you know you’ll face but haven’t yet addressed.
Can we combine planned and ad-hoc collaboration? Yes – many companies do this. They either task people, or employees do it out of zeal, to follow the newsgroups and help where they can. This brings several advantages – many people might see an answer in a group, and avoid calling in a problem.
[Written Jan. 20, 1998.]