Dear Caribcad Partners,
This e-mail has an attached document which represents the formal position of FUNREDES on the issues related to information and communication between the members of the CARIBCAD project.
Please note that the fact you receive this document by e-mail (rather than by fax or surface mail) does not change its status as a formal position document of one of the partners of the project.
FUNREDES kindly asks each partner to read and comment this document which we would like to be annexed to the intermediary project report for the EU and possibly the final report.
The purpose of this document is to produce a reflection on essential issues related to the communication and information aspects of the CARIBCAD project, in order to collectively establish a sound strategy allowing to match our objectives for the remaining of the project agenda.
This document expresses frank positions and exposes judgments on the required and actual levels of IT control of the Caribcad partners; those expressions are made for the sake of clarity and because we perceive the situation as a serious issue for the success of the project.
We deliberately take the risk to chock some of you, who may take some of the judgments as offensive. Please do not take personally any of these positions: they are made as a crude diagnostic of the situation of the project as regards to inner communication and information. The statements come from a partner whose responsibility is defined in this area within the Caribcad project, and who considers that the conditions have not been reached yet to allow an efficient collaborative work via the Internet.
This document expresses the worry of Funredes that the Caribcad group has not reached a sufficient level to perform collaborative activities remotely via the Internet. The document states recommendations according to this situation. In order to go beyond a general statement about the weakness of the group in the IT area, a more precise diagnostic is established from the definition of the concept of "required Internet user level". The Internet user levels are characterized as growing sets of precise know-how. The need for appropriate training and practice is established. The situation where this need is not recognized by individuals or groups is stressed as a dangerous dead-lock. Following this defined framework, the Caribcad members are measured. The result of the measurement shows the need to complete an appropriate mixture of training and practices. The document identifies two positions in the current state of the project. Funredes' position sets as a prerequisite that the group must reach the required level on Internet skills, with special emphasis on methods and culture. The second one ignores the method considerations (and in particular the methodology document Funredes has written) and wants to rely only on appropriate groupware, tending to consider the IT environment as a constraint rather than an asset. Funredes warns its partners about the illusion of the software panacea and the risk to keep on ignoring the methods required to perform professionally with the Internet and the culture on which the Internet is standing. Funredes makes the recommendation that the group collectively faces the issue and makes decisions on the light of the very complexity of the required skills.
FUNREDES feels a strong need, after the UNINEW meeting in Newcastle, and before the CEUR/PUCMM meeting in Santiago de los Caballeros, to make a checkpoint on the issues which lie under its responsibilities, to establish a diagnostic, and to express recommendations for the mid-life of the project. At that step of the project it is probably our last opportunity to get the issue solved.
CARIBCAD is a research project about the possibility to distribute pieces of work of a CAD activity between remote partners, using the Internet. The work environment would be more specifically from European CAD Bureaus to Caribbean CAD Bureaus. The research itself is conducted as a collaborative activity between remote partners1 and is supposed to be centered on University partners2.
Any type of collaborative activity between remote partners (who cannot afford to meet each time communication or information would require, in a close environment) sets particular requirements in terms of communication and information which have to be fulfilled by Information Technology (IT) devices. Those requirements are almost independent of the nature the activity (research in biology, medicine or architecture, business venture for import/export, production or distribution of goods and services, etc.).
In order to make the document more readable, we would like to present those requirements as a set of questions and answers.
What are then the requirements to allow a team of people/institutions to be capable to work together in different and remote environments (e.g. with a controlled and very limited number of face to face meetings)?
The requirements can be expressed very simply as: each partner must have at least one "fluent IT user" (see the scale hereafter) in the team, perfectly articulated, via IT, with the team leader of each other partner (and preferably being the team leader). None of the other performing members of the team should lie below the level of "advanced user" of the same scale.
What is a "fluent IT user"?
Hereafter, we offer a classification of the IT users levels, for the sake of clarification. As any classification, this one has arbitrary components, and its value aims mainly at serving as a pedagogic model. However, we do perceive these definitions of levels are points within a continuum. Let us agree that there are some thresholds of knowledge to differentiate the main levels of users and let us try to agree more or less on the characteristics of each one of the thresholds.
We also would like to point out that depending of the nature of the working activity, environment and context of each user, a mentioned characteristic could take more or less importance. Hence, a user may belong to one of the category without necessarily matching all the characteristics (as long as the user compensates the absence of some of them in the determined level by other characteristics from a higher level).
The characteristics are split in four categories:
This is a first approximation identification of know-how and knowledge; Funredes will keep enhancing this framework, as a tool for both trainees and trainers.
USER TYPE
|
C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FUNCTIONS | TECHNICS | METHODS | CULTURE | ||||
| UNQUALIFIED | Not familiar with PC applications
or Not familiar with e-mail and WWW software. | ||||||
| BEGINNER | Familiar with PC basic applications3.
And Familiar with one e-mail and one WWW software, in one computer environment. | ||||||
| ADVANCED | The same as above plus:
| The same as above plus:
| The same as above plus:
| The same as above plus: | |||
| PROFESSIONAL | The same as above plus:
| The same as above plus:
| The same as above plus:
| The same as above plus:
| |||
| FLUENT | The same as above plus:
| The same as above plus:
| The same as above plus:
| The same as above plus:
| |||
| EXPERT | The same as above plus:
| The same as above plus:
| The same as above plus:
| The same as above plus:
| |||
How does a person become a fluent user?
Some people have become fluent users without any specific training as the result of years of intense use11. Most of the people from this category has been academic networkers since the 80's (BITNET). Their experience and long contact with a community willing to share its values have been determinant in the process.
New users and beginners (from the late 90's) who have not experienced a special or prolonged contact with the Internet community need an appropriate mixture of training and experience to progressively reach the level of fluent users12.
How much training is required to become a fluent user?
This is a complex question. An academic answer could easily be two years at the dose of 6 hours per week of training plus 2 hours per day of experimenting, which means close to 400 hours of education. As an indication, typical intensive programs to "train trainers" encompass an average number of training hours of the order of magnitude of 350 hours.
A possible efficient approach13 based on short but intense sessions could be as such:
This model is the most appropriate for projects such as Caribcad.
Who needs to reach the level of professional user?
Eventually, all professionals.
Who needs to reach the level of fluent users?
People participating in remote collaborative work14.
Does the self judgment of a user on his/her level always correspond to his/her actual level?
This is a fundamental question and the answer may give the explanation of blocking situations currently found in many organizations in relation with the professional use of IT.
Let us draw a graph with in X the real level of a user and in Y its self perception (let us call it the self perception vs. reality level curve).
| See the curve in annexed document: curve.jpg15 |
|---|
The typical curve would be a sinusoidal around the y=x axis starting form (U,U) to (E,E). The amplitude of the sinusoidal depends on personality parameters, but normally, the exposition to each training will make the curve step below the y=x line and the experience will progressively make it grow and eventually step above the y=x line.
A singular and not recommended situation occurs when there is a large gap between the self perception and the reality. Unfortunate but common situations are to be found when the real level is "beginner" but the self perception is "advanced" (B,A) or when the real level is "advanced" but the self perception is "fluent" (A,F). In both cases, the person does not feel the need for training and the progress made by the experience makes the person curve move as a straight line from (B,P) to some point below (P,E), with no incentive at all for more progress and a risk of dead-end situation leaving the level "fluent" out of reach.
It is obviously more difficult to have a person make progress if he/she considers he/she has reached the maximum level than if the person acknowledges the progress to be made.
The fact that the software to use the Internet are relatively straightforward provokes too often that confusion and this dead-en situation.
Nobody should believe because he/she knows how to use a word processor that he/she is skilled as a professional writer or a poet! Nobody should get the illusion because he/she has successfully used a spreadsheet he/she has turned into an accountant or a financial expert! However, many people do believe their ability to manage e-mail software and browser makes them specialists in communication and information. It is as if the existence of a software would change the nature of a task, removing from it the professional aspects.
NTIC specialists often agree this is one of the most acute obstacles for companies getting efficiently involved in the Information Society. Obviously the root of the problem lies in the underestimation of the complexity: if you do not want to get lost in New York, beside knowing how to drive your car, you need a driver's license, plus a map of the city and some methodological skills to get around. The actual complexity of the communication and information of the Internet is probably already higher than New York's and it keeps increasing exponentially16. Furthermore, by its almost biological nature, the Internet does not provide such things like exhaustive map or directories. The software may be straightforward but not so the communication and information environment.
From the Funredes experience, the very importance of the introductory seminar resides in conveying the order of magnitude of the problem people are facing and then creating motivation to learn more.
What are the factors which make the users overestimate their level?
That is also a difficult question. The factors are different according to the people, and they are often mixed, so it is hard to identify clearly each of the possible reasons. Here are some possible elements of explanation:
Hereafter we use the generic background as a tool to measure the actual situation of the CARIBCAD project.
How much training has been provided so far to the Caribad partners?
Only one 2 day intensive session has been scheduled so far, during the third meeting (M3), organized by Funredes in Santo Domingo. Furthermore, the training was intended only for the partners of the South. However, only one of the partners has really fully participated. Two scheduled partners did not attend, and the team leader of the second attending partner was seriously handicapped because of the use of English.
In the opinion of Funredes what was the product of the seminar?
The partner who did really attend the seminar has shown obvious progress in his move from beginner to professional user. The facts which testify are the following:
Now, obviously, one person could hardly represent a statistic!
What is the level of the individuals involved in the CARIBCAD project, according to the given scale?
Each individual is free and encouraged to use our classification to check where he/she stands.
In the opinion of Funredes, what is the actual level of the CARIBCAD partners in the following classification scale?
Hereafter is our estimation of the level of the partners following our definitions.
| <—— | ——> | |||||
| Unqualified | Beginner | Advanced | Professional | Fluent | ||
Uniguy |
||||||
| Uninew | ||||||
| FB | ||||||
| Tecam | ||||||
| Ceur | ||||||
| DK | ||||||
| TUD/B&B | TUD/Cicat | TUD/Atlanta | ||||
On what elements does Funredes base this partner classification?
In the observation of the behavior of the partners in terms of communication (mainly) and information and as regard to the established characteristics and the methodology document. See in annex 1, the compilation of the main problems which are described in the methodology document but have not been correctly incorporated in the community.
In the opinion of Funredes, do the CARIBCAD partners, as a group, presently have the sufficient level to carry on a collaborative activity from remote locations?
No.
In the opinion of Funredes, is that situation a serious issue for the possibility to convey the scheduled task in a timely manner?
Yes.
In the opinion of Funredes, is it possible to establish the required conditions in time to complete the project?
Yes. That would however require a drastical change of attitude from many partners, effective immediately after the Santiago meeting.
Does Funredes consider that some of the partners are in the singular point of the self perception vs. reality level curve?
Definitively they are strong indices of that situation in the Caribcad project.
Could you give examples or arguments to sustain this argument?
Yes. Hereafter is a selection of expressed statements (either within the virtual community or at the last Newcastle meeting):
The first one is the most typical one: "It is not because you have more time/experience with the Internet that you know better than us."
The hidden meanings of this sentence are very interesting:
Let's imagine that tomorrow a new high level CAD program allows a non skilled person to create the architectural plans to the home of his/her dreams. The architect corporation will probably have to face the same situation: people learning to use this software will tell them: "It is not because you have more time/experience using this tools that you know better than us"! And it would be the same for a medical diagnostic package and any other profession where expert system will offer to the user some "on behalf experts knowledge".
"We have too much real work to loose our time reading mails".
"The Internet is composed by a group of funny people who waste their time, I will not fall in the trap." This shows an ignorance of the new paradigm19.
"It is impossible to deal with the amount of message actually passing through the Caribcad listservs."
For the fluent users, this amount hardly represents more than 10% of their communication flow... These persons have learnt to process this size of communication flow using specific skills such as:
"Let's use 'outlook', from Microsoft, and all the communication problems will be solved."
The confusion between the tools and the methods is extremely common and perverse. A good worker does use good tools but the reciprocity is hardly true: a good hammer does not turn a person into a carpenter20.
"Forbid the use of BCC."
This is a funny recommendation, somehow like forbidding corridor discussions in office real life!
"Let's use the Subject field of a mail to prepare a flow control mechanism".
Some conventions in flow control could certainly help, if and only if they are followed by everybody. However, the violation of RFC 886 is not the correct approach (the format of a header is precisely defined by the Internet Architecture and must be respected).
There are two possible options.
What recommendations does Funredes wish to express?
Reading the minutes of the Newcastle meeting22, one could get the impression that a majority position emerged in Newcastle (with the acknowledgment of Funredes), which proposes taking a different approach to the communication and information process within the project, not only as regards to the CAD work distribution, but also to the community endeavor. This is sustained furthermore by various misleading statements in the Minutes, which the Funredes representatives must correct (see annex 2).
Would the time of the project be extensive, the suggested approach would be obviously the best way (either it succeeds, which is great; either it fails and then clearly demonstrates that those who pushed it need a serious training on IT). Although Funredes does not support this "new approach"23, it considers it could be, if time permits, an interesting experience to leave the Uninew partner take the lead and to follow its strategy to draw upon experience. Unfortunately, other issues would appear:
What is the alternative option?
This would be to resume a training effort during the Santiago meeting. However, the perceived reserve is strong and we do not believe in imposed training. Without motivation to learn there is no learning curve. Without real appreciation of the gap to learn there is no motivation. And anyway, due to the amount of training required, this is a necessary but not sufficient task. A day to day reinforcement of the IT practices should be organized anyway.
What is the conclusion?
The project stands in a profound dilemma. This situation deserves a frank debate between all the partners. This debate must be finished before the Santiago meeting, and concluded with a clear and consensual plan.
1. Please note that the fact the research itself is being conducted in a distributed fashion is not a requirement to design a distributed CAD workspace. On the contrary, one could have imagined a centralized team of researchers designing, in a close collaborative environment, the rules to apply to distribute remotely CAD activities and then perform a benchmark of the results in a remote collaborative environment. The fact that this project is organized, from the research point of view, in a remote collaborative environment, does set particular requirements on the working environments in terms of information and communication. Those information and communication requirements are a priori different of those which could be recommended by the research team for the delivery of a remote distributed CAD project.
2. The presence of CAD Bureaus is here to allow the research to be pragmatic and applicable to real business life.
3. Operating system (from the user point of view), Word processor, spreadsheet and any specific applications related to the domain of activity (e.g. CAD software).
4. With the ability to subscribe and unsubscribe without annoying the virtual community.
5. E.g.: to check one's e-mail on a regular basis (a daily basis, at least, on weekdays), to express within context and without ambiguity, to be able to find a Web site on a given subject, to find the URL of a given site, to perform a research (Web, news, etc.) on a simple given subject, to be able to keep a basic technological watch on a subject of interest, to be aware of the basic principles which rule all the "efficient" virtual communities, to judge at a glance what priority such and such message deserves, to know perfectly how to compose a message (header, body, signature), etc.
6. At this level, the user understands the essence of netiquette, the role and usefulness of FAQ and the fundamental differences between the Internet and other traditional media in terms of interactivity and participation.
7. E.g.: copyright, intellectual property, security, norms and standards, non-profit Internet culture, cyber-business, information as a national asset, transparency and democracy, languages and cultures vs. The Internet, censorship vs. Cyberporn, telecom deregulation, spamming, hoax , chain letters, flames.
8. Use of CGI-Bin or Java out of scope.
9. Information services.
10. Having a clear conceptual identification of the different Internet information spaces and search angles. Capable to know where to find information on any subject, where to ask which question, capable to use efficiently search engines and directories, as well as clearing houses, for personal use, etc.
11. Our colleague Godfried is probably the best example within our virtual community.
12. Obviously, some persons with the appropriate motivation, curiosity and communication skills... and free time are capable to train themselves and reach this level without external training.
13. Which does require motivation and proactivity from the user.
14. The odds are very high that, within the on-going transformation into the Information Society, most of the professionals will eventually belong to this group.
15. The reason why the curve is not embedded in the Word document is a compatibility bug of Microsoft Word (between 97 and 95) which makes the addition of two 40K files become a 2Mbytes file! It is not embedded in the HTML document either in order to match the size recommendations.
16. Note that within the Internet environment the problem is still made more acute by the fact that the level of services of the Internet grows also very fast. If users do not maintain some constant progress on their abilities they progressively tend to step back in the level scale.
17. The Internet is not a mere add-on to the communication and information set of tools: it is a new paradigm. This means that we need to change totally our perception.
18. One of the main critiques the Internet community received back in the 80's was to behave like a closed group, somehow like CBs. This argument has been destroyed by the globalization of the phenomenon (probably more than 100 millions users today).
19. E-mail does help to save time: there is no need to spend as much time in transportation and face to face meetings; no need to wait for the other one to be ready. The non-synchronous nature of e-mail (as oppose to telephone or fax) makes it less spectacular ... but broadens the opportunity to set an organized use of one's time.
20. I remember, when I was a programmer in IBM, that this company tried to solve the problem of thousands of self-made-programmers who have been working for long in IBM without the corresponding training in objects like finite state machine, or tree structures. The first idea was to use design programs instead of leaving the design to those programmers. Guess what happen? The unskilled programmers started using those languages as programming languages with their usual way of doing design! The skilled programmers were split between a minority who find the design language interesting to be used and a majority who were not very eager to be obliged to use a unique standard program to convey their job. It was a mess. And then IBM decided to organize an intense and systematic software engineering, a 3 month training for the whole population of programmers. This was a wiser move. For the history, this was not sufficient because another mistake was made: the managers were not considered within the corporate training effort and many of them were still pushing their programmers after the training, to behave without method so to exhibit fast (but unreliable) results!!!
21. An interesting experience was conducted, in the beginning of the 90's, by a Chilean, Fernando Florés, who produced and marketed the software named the "Coordinador". Unfortunately, for business reasons, this was not an additional layer in top of existing e-mail agents but a whole package of communication, hence not compatible with the Internet. The communication concepts embedded in the Coordinador were though extremely interesting and one could get inspired by the theory. Hereafter are two references:
22. By the way, it is almost impossible from this set of collected handnotes to have a clear idea of the outcomes of this meeting. A synthesis is still needed, such as the Minutes that were released for the previous meetings.
23. Although it is yet to be seen a clear definition of such approach.
Go to the annexes of this document
Back to the methodology page
Back to the CARIBCAD homepage
Creation: June 12, 1998
Latest modification: June 12, 1998
Author: CD-DP (FUNREDES)
© 1997-98
