Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 09:00:20 -0400
To: kn@nsf.gov (Les Gasser)
From: Brad Cox <bcox@gmu.edu>
Subject: Letter of Intent: Knowledge Networking Solicitation
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

Mike McCloskey suggested that I contact you for your feedback and
advice on how to adjust this proposal to KDI expectations and needs.

If you prefer, I could stop by to discuss this in person at your
convenience. My email address is bcox@gmu.edu and my telephone number
is 703 361 4751.

Brad Cox

Subject: Letter of Intent: Knowledge Networking Solicitation
Author: Brad Cox <bcox@gmu.edu> at NOTE
Date: 3/20/98 3:42 PM


This signifies intent to submit a proposal to the Knowledge Networking
Solicitation in the area of Coordination Technology as defined in the short
paper (enclosed).

The precise focus for this work will be chosen based on your guidance and
feedback from the following list of possibilities:

1) Coordination Technology and Distance Education: The application that has
been developed and studied most thoroughly to date is a television- and
internet-based distance education course, "Taming the Electronic Frontier"
(http://www.virtualschool.edu/98a).

2) Coordination Technology and Organizations: A major telecommunications
company is deploying a ambitious coordination technology application,
analogous to the one used in this course. Instead of being targeted towards
individual learning, this one is targeted at organizational learning across
multiple companies and divisions. We've been asked by its CEO to study the
initial rollout of this system (this fall), put their practical experiences
on a theoretical basis, and use computer modeling technologies to quantify
the speed of organizational learning and change before and after deployment.

3) Other: We'd be happy to propose other applications of coordination
technology other than those mentioned above, based on your suggestions.

This work is inherently interdisciplinary. I've not spoken to this list of
possible participants yet because I wanted to get your response to this
outline first:

Brad Cox: Object-oriented Software Engineering, Coordination
Technology, Modeling
Tojo Joseph: Organizational Learning
Jim Finelstein: Public Policy
Tammy Bennington: Ethnography
Thomasina Borkman: Sociology, Group Dynamics

I'd expect to also include these because of strong shared interested in
hypertext as applied to organizational learning. I've listed them
separately because I believe they may be submitting a different proposal to
fund Hyperlab, a web-based laboratory analogous to MIT's MediaLab.

Peter Denning: Computer Science, Coordination Technology, Knowledge
Ontology
Lewis Perelman: Computer Science, Management, Hyperlab, Education
Danny Menasce: Computer Science, Hyperlab


Coordination Technology

In "Understanding Computers and Cognition; A New Foundation
for Design", Wingrad and Flores introduce the term "Coordination
Technology" in connection with the work of Paul Cashman and
Anatol Holt. I worked very closely with Holt at ITT, who used the
term to mean almost the opposite of communication technology. I
will explain that opposition here.

The technologies we associate with the internet today: email, the
web, and conferencing tools such as Caucus or WebCrossing, are
communication technologies, not coordination technologies. Their goal
is to haul every last byte to every participant without losing a
single one. The goal is to empower individuals to communicate
more effectively than they ever could before.

Although such empowerment of individuals has obvious
advantages, its the drawbacks I want to emphasize here. Giving
everyone a megaphone creates as many problems as it solves, as
the proliferation of useless web pages and junk mail abundantly
shows. By amplifying both signal (timely, relevant) and noise
(untimely, irrelevant), the signal is lost in the noise.

Coordination technologies have the opposite goal, of amplifying
signal alone. Of course, for computers to distinguish signal and
noise, they must be given precise information about the
organizational roles and responsibilities of each user and the
organizational context within which they are acting. A
coordination tool that expedites the yearly budget cycle, for
example, would "know" the precise roles and responsibilities for
each participant, the schedule, and the organizational process for
budgeting. It would guide and schedule their goal-directed
activities in a structured manner, leading to a defined result within
a predefined schedule.

A mechanical analog is the spring-loaded wires and baskets that
used to carry department store transactions whizzing between
cashiers and back office clerks. The wires were organizational
"pipes and fittings" that embodied the knowledge that cashiers and
back office clerks needed to interact frequently. A communication
tool (hiring an office boy to carry transactions from any point to
any other) would have been more general. However generality
wasn't the problem they needed to solve.

The following differences distinguish the two kinds of tools:

Communication tools amplify both signal (timely, relevant)
and noise (untimely, irrelevant). Coordination tools omit
noise and amplify signal alone.

Communication tools are general purpose. Coordination
tools are special purpose. The latter cannot be written once
and reused by diverse organizations. They must be highly
customized, or rewritten, for different organizations.

Communication tools are common. Coordination tools are
rare. This is a correlary of the preceeding point.

Communication tools are unstructured. Coordination tools
are structured. The former are better for exploration of new
opportunities, the latter for action within existing
opportunities.

Communication tools are democratic. Coordination tools
are authoritarian. They put someone in the priviledged
position of deciding what is timely and relevant for everyone
else.

The point, obviously, isn't that coordination tools are "better" or
"worse" than communication tools. Both have important roles to
play. It is simply to point out that communication technologies are
common and coordination technologies are rare. A consequence, of
course, is the feeling that the signal is being swamped by the noise
on the internet as we know it today.

Academic products (courses, degrees or certificates) obviously
involve both kinds of technologies. Communication technologies
range from email to web conferencing to face to face encounters in
the halls and classrooms. Such activities are clearly an important
part of an education.

But there is also another part implied by the structured progression
of scheduled events. Enrollment, task deadlines, timely completion
of courses, and graduation are all structured schedule-driven
events of the sort that fall well within the coordination tool
umbrella.

For examples of efforts to balance these two approaches with respect
to online courses, see http://www.virtualschool.edu/now under Taming
the Electronic Frontier. The first page of an individual's locker
presents only what's timely and relevant to the role they logged in
as. For example, students are only presented with information about
what they must do to be successful in this course this week.

Everything else is in the background, accessible via a hotlink. For
example, the semester schedule is available via a hotlink with
grades, upcoming lecture outlines, presentation slides and so forth.
All this is available but in the background, there if its needed but
irrelevant to the "what must I do now" decision. Several
communication technologies, such as email, web conferencing,
chat, telephones, are also accessible, available they're needed but
never the main topic of interest.

Author: Brad Cox

Brad Cox; bcox@gmu.edu; 703 361 4751
GMU Program on Social and Organizational Learning
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon: A Project with Paradoxical Goals
PGP Fingerprint: E14E 9615 FEB8 A8F7 9BFC EB22 80A8 646E 4E63 0DFE

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

From: <mmcclosk@nsf.gov>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 98 08:09:17 EST
To: Brad Cox <bcox@gmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Letter of Intent: Knowledge Networking Solicitation

Thank you for your KDI letter of intent. These letters will not be
reviewed, and no formal feedback will be provided; their principal
purpose is to help us plan the full proposal review process.

I suggest that you get in touch with Les Gasser, the coordinator for
the KN focus of KDI, at kn@nsf.gov, if you would like some guidance on
the alternatives you are considering.

Mike McCloskey
Chair, KDI Working Group

--- end forwarded text