Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- blog:2024:1120_experience_and_technological_design:who_where_when_and_why [2024/11/20 19:17] – mchiasson
+++ blog:2024:1120_experience_and_technological_design:who_where_when_and_why [2024/11/20 21:16] (current) – [Technology] mchiasson
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 To be clear, there are possible cross-overs into the "participation as of value", both to support and critique it.  But participation as **a** value is good for itself, without focusing or pushing it as a means to other ends.
-Despite this odd independence from other ends, its justification depends on other higher ends to answer the "why" for "its own sake": e.g. individual rights to shape the technologies that they use and are affected by; the joy of humans shaping their own tools and work environment; seeing each and every person as offering a unique and important vantage point from individual experiences; seeking diverse perspectives on work and individual experiences in shaping technological design and use (but as a secondary end); the striving for limited or zero harm to people's quality-of-working life.  {some of these are still ends driven, and so will need further work}.
+Despite this assumed independence from other ends, its justification depends on other higher ends to answer "why" for "its own sake": e.g. individual rights to shape the technologies that they use and are affected by; the joy of humans shaping their own tools and work environment; seeing each and every person as offering a unique and important vantage point from individual experiences; seeking diverse perspectives on work and individual experiences in shaping technological design and use (but as a secondary end); the striving for limited or zero harm to people's quality-of-working life.  {some of these are still ends driven, and so will need further work}.
 Broader values about participation as **a** value may support a view that all organizations and technology should be driven by all humans interests, and not by the goals of other non-human things/means; markets, organizations (survival), technology for technology sake, artificial intelligence to see if we can replicate human intelligence, shareholders (a subset of human interests), or any other goals.
@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
-and values fall around assumed goals and goods for particula
+===== Technology =====
+In addition to participation **of** value and **a** value, various loose connections are made to the handling of the semi-material realities of new and changing information technologies.  We use the term "loose" because they are neither the inductively-proven results of experiment, nor deductively-derived proofs from theoretical concepts, so must always remain more-or-less, conjectures about the processes and possibilities for realizing values.
-We conclude that
+In terms of information technology, we consider 3 broad social and material natures of it over time, all now operating in the present in 3 semi-independent spheres.
+**Large and cross-department technologies**, custom-built initially in the 1970s and and 80s, and now evident in enterprise systems requiring more or less customization to achieve enterprise-wide results, are our first or three social and material natures to IT.
+It is typically in this particular social and material sphere that we encounter some of the earliest discussions of employee participation, at work.  As such, the who, what, where, when and why questions of participation were typically answered in the 70s and 80s, as a means to particular ends:
+  * why: to increase organizational efficiency, typically focused on quickening and streamlining inter-organizational processes through transactional processing and the semi-automation of production.
+  * what: the determination of requirements (and non-requirements) in designing a new technology.
+  * who: employees as users, managers as project holders, and designer-programmers as technology coders
+  * where and when: with customization, participation by employees was typically done early through meetings
+    * why: in order to produce the requirements for what the system should do.
+    * who: Typically unstated as participants were the designers who had continual access to shaping the emerging technologies, and managers who had the final say on whether certain requirements became required (or not).
+  * how: through designer lead conversations,
+    * how: in many industrial cases, the threat of industrial action if employee input was ignored or neglected tended to surround the focal how.
+In contrast and at the same time, other configurations of the questions were organized through socio-technical logic:
+  * why: to increase organizational efficiency, typically focused on quickening and streamlining inter-organizational processes through transactional processing and the semi-automation of production.
+  * what: the determination of new work and technical arrangements through continuous conversation and adjustment
+  * who: across employees as work participants, independent of managers; drawing upon designer-programmers directly to build emerging technologies
+  * where and when: continuous participation and discernment across employees throughout
+    * why: employees have the local understanding and expertise to make change
+  * how: through self-organized teams
+An enterprise systems emerged in the 1990s to dominate enterprise-wide systems development, we find a switch back to the first chain-of-reasoning, with alternative logics and new participants:
+  * why: to increase organizational efficiency, typically focused on quickening and streamlining inter-organizational processes through transactional processing (less semi-automation of production)
+  * what: the determination of requirements (and non-requirements) for a new technology;
+  * what: the selection of a "best fit" enterprise system, using its preexisting structures to change organizational processes.
+  * who: employees still as users, managers as project holders, business consultants to consider current and changed organizational practices, designer-programmers their to implement and customize the software.
+  * where and when: participation by employees is done throughout, but emphasis is on training and accommodation, and the identification of gaps needing either software customization or work-related change
+    * why: in order to change what the system will do or what the employee will need to learn.
+    * who: as before, unstated participants include the technology (STS), the consultants, the designers who have reduced access to shaping the emerging technologies, and managers who had the final say on project outcomes.
+  * how: through consultant-designer lead conversations with users throughout
+    * how: in many industrial cases, the threat of industrial action is no longer present.  Nevertheless, so-called problems with employee resistance in post-implementation use remain.
+Beginning with end-user computing and the rise of personal computing in the 1980s, extending into the internet era, we see another social and material ensemble emerge, which we call **participant-lead computing**, in an effort to explain in a phrase, the form of participation it encouraged.   Whether through spreadsheets and word processor in the 1980s, internet browsers and e-mail in the 90s, social-computing in the 00s, or personalized productively apps in the 10s, the plethora of software available for download and use encourages a very different set of answers to our questions about participation:
+  * why: a range of responses, but generally the end is the production of useful software through participant-lead selection, exploration and use of software for personalized productivity: writing, deciding, and communicating
+  * what: the availability of numerous software apps to meet an ever-increasing appetite for functionalities that inform, delight, communicate --
+  * who: employees and citizen revealed demands; software app producers and social medial companies meeting and exceeding the want.
+  * where and when: participation is continuous and through society-wide use, within and beyond the organization; app companies meet or create the demands (or not) for their products
+  * how: through user forums and customer experiences; producing or reducing market demand
+In many respects, the **participant-lead computing** looks like the dominant answer to the production of useful software, the diversity of human needs, and the inclusion of diverse perspectives into technological design.  However, its ideal rests on a number of important assumptions that are not immediately closed to critical questions:
+  * enterprise systems development still dominates most people's experiences of technological design in work.
+  * the challenges of scaling individually-selected software into group and enterprise-wide coordination is difficult (but not impossible) to imagine.
+  * given the previous point, the conditions and possibilities for participant-lead computing may be minor compared with other social and material conditions
+  * the meeting of any particular individual demands still rests on the market availability of software to meet demand.  If there isn't enough of a market for a particular function, individual needs remain unmet.
+  * with any downloadable software, there is still often considerable time and expertise required in order to shape the software towards individual needs and productivity.  It may thus be only possible for those who are in jobs and organizations where such resources and time are available.
+Our third social and material setting, while more recent but sitting beside and often drawing upon the second setting, is another social and material ensemble which we call **data-revealed computing**.   Whether through spreadsheets and word processor in the 1980s, internet browsers and e-mail in the 90s, social-computing in the 00s, or personalized productively apps in the 10s, the plethora of software available for download and use encourages a very different set of answers to our questions about participation:
 {{tag>design_paper}}