Transcending the Individual Human Mind-Creating Shared Understanding
through Collaborative Design

Arias, E.G., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., & Scharff, E. (2000)

 

1. What did you find:

    a. Interesting about the article

        The idea of symmetry
of ignorance was most intriguing in this paper. By recognizing the
fact that no individual stakeholder is capable of knowing "everything"
and is ignorant about the different representations of an issue, it is
very clear that two minds are always better than one. By allowing for varied
perspectives, a group is able to discover alternative design (re)solutions
to the given problem. Keeping all stakeholders in-charge of the problem
is a novel way of promoting interaction between group members so that the
resolution reflects a common decision and includes each stakeholder's contribution.
This single concept, I believe, is evidence for the need for collaboration,
specially in the design stage of an open system, and serves as the fundamental
motivation for the EDC system.

        Additionally, in terms of
writing style, I like that the authors discuss the challenges for Human-Computer
Interaction as a build-up to the EDC system. Without clearly defining the
issues to be dealt with, it would have been hard to justify the work done
on the EDC system.

    b. Not interesting about the article

        There wasn't anything in
particular that I did not like in this paper. I realize that some of the
repetitiveness in the paper might arise from the need to drive home the
idea that collaboration is crucial while working in a group setting.

 

2. What do you consider the main message of the article?

    The paper is very effective in relaying the indispensible
need for intra- and inter- group collaboration while working on a problem.
At the very onset, the authors recognize the rapid development of new technologies,
new interaction techniques and new design approaches. In doing so, they
also recognize the fact that no individual is capable of keeping-up with
these developments single-handedly and thus requires to collaborate with
members of the (technical and lay) society to enable an effective (re)solution
to the problem. By examining most (if not all) of the interaction problems
faced in a group, the paper emphasizes the need to go beyond the single
mind and presents the EDC system as an excellent example of incorporating
solutions to these interaction issues. In other words, not only is it important
to recognize the fact that members in a group share distributed cognition
but that they also need to actively externalize this information
so that they become active contributors to the design of the project.

 

3. What are the themes discussed in the article that you would like
to learn more about?

    a. In dealing with wicked problems, the paper
points out that "it is important to design with an understanding of the
nature of potential extensions". In the case where all "potential" extensions
cannot be realized at design-time (if group members are not aware of such
extensions), how does one incorporate a new extension when the system wasn't
initially built to accept such change? Would the design have to be abandoned
in such a situation? Is there a concept of "throw one away" (Butler Lampson-"Hints on Computer System Design") included in the EDC system?

    b. In re-evaluating and re-designing the EDC system,
the paper says that in order to have a better understanding of the issue
stakeholders revisit the model they have constructed and make changes to
the system to include these new requirements. When does this cycle of "revisit-and-repair"
end? At what stage do the designers stop adding-on to the system and completely
redesign it?

 

4. What did you find interesting about the EDC system?

    Having browsed through a few papers from previous
CSCL conferences, it is apparent that the EDC is the first system of its
kind that works outside of the academic boundary and has applications in
the social community. CaMILE (Collaborative and Multimedia Interactive
Learning Environment), designed at Georgia Tech, was built to facilitate
engineering students' learning. DDA (Design Discussion Area), also developed
at Georgia Tech, supported student reports to each other about their design
efforts as they learnt  science from design activities. The MA1 (MutualAid1)
model developed at the University of Queensland focussed mainly on developing
computer tool skills within a technical group. Finally, TAPPED IN developed
at SRI International was an on-line testbed designed to meet the needs
of education professionals. It is only in the EDC system that (literally)
people on the street had a say in the planning of the transportation system.

    In a scenario where academic research seems to be
isolating itself from applicability to "real world" problems, the EDC system
recognizes the gap between the technical and non-technical environment
and seeks to develop a product that can actually be put to good use by
every citizen. In doing so, the EDC motivates citizens to become an active
part of the design culture.

 

5. Do you know of other papers, ideas, and systems which are closely
related to the article and the EDC system?

    As mentioned above, there are many systems (CaMILE,
DDA, MA1, TAPPED IN, etc) that recognize the important of collaboration
in designing a system, however there are no other systems like the EDC
that collaborate between people of all ranks to develop a system that would
be useful in a social and cultural context. Some of the papers that I read
that had good ideas were:

• Collaborative Learning as Interplay between Simulation Model Builder and Player-Kurt Schneider and Kumiyo Nakakoji
  
• Collaborative Support for Learning in Complex Domains-Mark Guzdial, Jennifer Turns, Noel Rappin, and David Carlson
  
• Design for Collaborative Learnability-R. T. Jim Eales and Jim Welsh
  
• From MOO to MEOW: Domesticating Technology for Online Communities-Patricia Schank, Jamie Fenton, Mark Schlager, and Judi Fusco
  
• The Design Discussion Area: A Collaborative Learning Tool in Support of Learning from Problem-Solving and Design Activities-Janet L. Kolodner and Kristine Nagel

6. What does the article say about:

    a. Design

        The design process should
take advantage of symmetry of ignorance in order to incorporate
as many points of view as possible from all involved stakeholders. In this
manner, the system is built "by" the people and "for" the people. The design
should also be kept open with evolutionary changes in mind so that
the changing needs of stakeholders can be incorporated into the system
as required.

    b. Learning

        Learning is crucial at every
stage of designing a collaborative system. At the outset, the group needs
to learn the requirements placed upon the system and be able to
understand the how and why of the various demands. At the
design stage, each stakeholder has to construct an environment of shared
understanding (to exploit the symmetry of ignorance) to learn of
all the possible solutions to the problem. By contextualizing information
the group is able to increase opportunities for learning on demand.
And finally, by re-evaluating and re-visiting the model, each stakeholder
learns
of the changes required of the system and is able to suggest modifications
based on these new demands places on the system.

    c. Collaboration

        The main idea in this paper,
collaboration is touted as the principal goal in designing good human-computer
interactive systems. To ensure that the system servers everyone's purpose
equally and each stakeholder believes the design "belongs" to him/her,
collaboration is to transpire between stakeholders in the system, between
the computational media and stakeholders, and between designers of the
system and its users (those that did not participate its design). Only
in doing so can the system evolve from being a static, one-solution-for-all
project into one that is dynamic and tailored-for-innovation.

    d. Innovative media support for these activities

        The paper clearly states
that in order to aid learning and design, an integrated environment needs
to exist in which users discover and frame problems, and construct new
visions. The EDC environment creates a context that promotes shared understanding
and informed participation in order to go beyond a single mind (and its
constraints). It brings together systems in order to serve particular challenges
(shared understanding, coevolutionary environments, motivating computational
environments, and incrementally constructing domain models). By using the
action
space (horizontal electronic whiteboard) and reflection space
(vertical electronic whiteboard), the EDC system realizes this integrated
environment.

 

7.  Do you have any ideas how this research could/should be
extended (based on your own knowledge and experience)?

     The current Air Traffic monitoring system
is in shambles. Strategically important airports like Newark, NJ and La
Guardia, NY experience the highest flight delays in the country. This is
primarily because the ATC (Air Traffic Control) system has not been able
to keep up with the ever-increasing demand to channel-in more planes per
airport. I believe that the EDC system would be well applied in the control
towers at these airports wherein the system could serve as a collaborative
system where passengers, engineers, pilots, airport workers, etc would
be able to contribute their ideas towards making the traffic control system
more efficient, timely, and in-tune with rising demands. In particular,
the airline community would benefit greatly from the active feedback mechanism
incorporated into the EDC system (through web surveys) and dynamically
deal with the fluctuations in air travel.