|
|
|
"Distributed Collective Technologies for Co-operation: A Brief View from French Experience."
Claude Henry
November 7th 2002, Montegrotto, Italy
Claude observed that software tools for collective activities (for ordinary people) are only just starting to be developed. In this field the traditional model of design for a paying consumer is not really relevant since those interested in collectivities can usually only pay a limited amount.
He listed the types of groups that might be interested in collective software: groups in civil society (non-trading companies), groups of citizens, associations and thematic networks (meaning more than groups with just shared interest but instead where the members want to act on a common idea). What characterised many of these groups is that there was little hierarchy, demands for transparency, a strong personal commitment but not necessarily a permanent involvement (if time is limited), heterogeneity in terms of skills, the importance of shared values, open-mindedness to uncertainty and complexity, a willingness to share in decision making and be responsible for a share of the work, a certain fragility of the network and limited resources.
Claude described four ideals of systems being developed that might enhance collective activity:
- Shared publishing
The SPIP system.
Here members could put their articles on the same web-site, they can add a message other people’s article, they can identify themselves with e-mail address — and that message will also be published on-line.
- On line assessment
The DELIBERA system.
Here people can vote on different statements (e.g. pressing various keys to indicate agree, half agree, disagree, don’t understand etc). This system provides immediate feedback, a ‘snapshot’ of group’s ideas at any moment in time. It is not meant to be a final vote so much as a form of intelligence gathering and another evaluation might be made at a later stage. In addition, participants can make comments that can also be analysed by the software e.g. to show anomalous positions (where what a person says on one issue does not appear to fit what they say on others).
- Linguistic semantical design to display consensus and dissensus (lack of consensus) in large groups.
This system shows how the words that people use to deal with the same theme differ – e.g. French people, people in the European Commission, African people might all use different expressions when addressing a subject, to indicate different points of view. This system analyses such semantic differences by text and word analysis.
- Structured memory for collective activities: Supporting virtual meetings
The Magic Lounge project.In this system, if someone has not been involved in a debate but comes to it later, he or she can look at this memory to work out what has happened, what has been discussed, what the replies have been etc. — searching the memory for both topics and people. People can also chat on this system, pressing a button to indicate the status of their contribution (e.g. inform, request, suggest, accept etc.)
|