Virtual Workplaces When Metaphors Breakdown by Thomas W. I. Gallemore B.Arch, Carnegie Mellon, 1991 Submitted to the Department of Architecture in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Architecture Studies in Design Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology June 1998 @ 1998 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. Signature of the Author Thomas W. I. Gallemore Department of Architecture May 8,1998 , N 1 Certified By William L. Porter Norman B. and Muriel Leventhal Professor of Architecture and Planning Thesis ervisor Accepted by Roy Strickland Associate Professor of Architecture Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Students J1 71998 Virtual Workplaces When Metaphors Breakdown by Thomas W. Gallemore Submitted to the Department of Architecture on May 8, 1998 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Architecture Studies Abstract Our model of work is shaped by the places we choose to work and the tools we choose to work with. As we introduce new technologies and build new environments our model is changing. Today's virtual workplaces are grounded in models of work that have been reformed from our experiences using current technology in physical workspace. However we are discovering opportunities and possibilities for work in collaborative, virtual environments that question physical models. Emerging patterns of distributed collaboration in persistent virtual environments are changing the way we work in time and space, recasting our notion of workplace. Virtual workplaces are interpreted and experienced through metaphors that describe a space of potential for work occurrences. Through the lens of metaphors, this research focuses on breakdowns between collaborative work and the environment in which work occurs. If what we understand and predict is based on what we already know, then by examining the breakdowns between design and use of collaborative environments we can illuminate the space of possibilities for collaborative work. Thesis Supervisor William L. Porter Norman B. and Muriel Leventhal Professor of Architecture and Planning Acknowledgments This research is a collaboration between MITRE Corporation of Bedford, Massachusetts and MIT Space Organization Research Group (SPORG) in Design Technology. The common ground stems from MITRE's research and development of Collaborative Virtual Workspace (CVW) and MIT-SPORG's design research in physical and virtual collaborative work settings and tools. Thesis Readers William J. Mitchell Dean, School of Architecture and Planning Tar L. Fanderclai MITRE Corporation, CVW Development Team For whom I am especially thankful for all her support, coordination and virtual presence throughout Thanks RCF Team at MITRE CVW Development Team at MITRE For their patience, and candid good humor Mike Joroff Senior Lecturer in Architecture and Planning For supporting and questioning my questions Chuck Kukla Senior Research Scientist, Digital and MIT-SPORG For making opportunities happen Turid Horgen Research Associate, SPORG-MIT For questioning everything and making design matter Edith Ackermann Associate Professor MIT-SPORG and Research Scientist, MERL For teaching, learning, teaching, learning... Melissa Kingman For all her help, love and tolerance and for making life physical Contents 2 Abstract 3 Acknowledgments 5 List of Figures 6 Chapter One: Modeling Work Knowledge Work ... Physical Workplace Strategies ... Workplace Making.. .Collaborative Systems.. .Projecting Onto.. .Projecting Into.. .Comparing Approaches 27 Chapter Two: Working Virtual Working in virtual environments.. .Collaborative Virtual Workspace.. .Field Study 39 Chapter Three: Workplace Metaphors Metaphors and thought.. .Spatial Structure.. .Temporal Structure... Context Metaphors... Place, Event, Process 51 Chapter Four: Breakdowns Why Metaphors Breakdown... Evaluation.. .Disruptive Breakdowns.. .Generative Breakdown 62 Chapter Five: Re-Working Place Individual-Group WORK.. .Physical-Virtual SPACE... n-Betweens... Aesthetics 79 References 82 Appendix A: Context Metaphors 83 Appendix B: Silent Game List of Figures Chapter One 11 Figure L.a Changing Patterns of Work and Space Recreated from (Duffy 1997) 12 Figure 1.b Social Technical approaches to Workplace Making 13 Figure 1.c Technical Conceptual Collaboration Recreated from (Schrage 1991) 15 Figure 1.d Time-Space Recreated from J. Grudin IEEE June 1994 20 Figure i.e Collaborative Systems on the Socio-Technical Dimensions 21 Figure l.f Shared Spaces: Transportation, Artificiality, and Transportation. Recreated from (Benford et. al 1996) 22 Figure 1.g Three Dimensions of Cooperative Buildings Source (Streitz et. al.1998) 23 Figure 1.h Functional Model of Collaborative Spaces Source (Streitz et. al 1998) Chapter Two All illustrations and icons in Chapter Two are from CVW interface and are the property of MITRE Corporation 31 Figure 2.a CVW Client GUI 32 Figure 2.b CVW Floor Map 33 Figure 2.c Online User List 36 Figure 2.d Pop-Up Window Chapter Three 46 Figure 3.a PlaceWare Auditorium 48 Figure 3.b Process Context Metaphor Chapter Four 60 Figure 4.a Evaluation Matrix Chapter Five 66 Figure 5.a Work and Space 74 Figure 5.b Rubber Banding Between Extreme Positions 75 Figure 5.c Design Approaches 75 Figure 5.d Moving Between 78 Figure 5.e Composition in couleur 1917 Piet Mondrian Source: (Lemoine 1987) 79 Figure 5.f Small Dream in Red Wassily Kandinsky. Source (Rothel 1977) 80 Figure 5.g The Frame Montage background image. Source (Duffy 1996) 1 Modeling WorkPlaces The phone rings. The doorbell buzzes. Your Email dings. Does someone want your attention or is someone just passing along a message? You screen your calls, you look through the peep hole, or filter incoming messages. Depending on who it is or what it is about, you will decide whether or not to engage an immediate response. You are in control. The door opens. A co-worker stops by your desk. A message instantly appears on your desktop. It doesn't matter who it is or what it is about, you have to respond. Not only is it easier to reach our colleagues, it is easier for them to reach us. When we work together we adapt conventions for how we interact in space and time. When someone answers the phone we expect a responding 'hello', when an office door is open we assume availability. When we work in different places and at different times we adapt our behavior to fit the context. If there are no doors we may use signage or body language. Over time the patterns of behavior become convention, through mutual acceptance and reinforcement. The patterns in which we interact with one another and with our context, form the basis of our model' of work practice. If our goal is to improve the way we work, our purpose for modeling is to describe and access key features and their relationships so that they can be finessed. By constructing models we can make hypotheses and evaluate alternative theories. Models do not replicate either the real or imagined original, rather they are incomplete, and are inevitably susceptible to distortion. If our model is too detailed, the features become increasingly cumbersome to access and manipulate. If too obscure, the features and relationships become increasingly difficult to identify. The way in which we represent and describe our models are then subject to rules of interpretation for accuracy. By observation and engagement in work, we are continually validating and reshaping our models of work practice (Black 1962) to test out new processes and work strategies. Our constructions and interpretations are asymmetrical and are due individual differences and contextual differences. Individual differences are due to professional orientation, personal style, background experience as well as emotional state or career position. Contextual differences are due to available resources, indexed references and presence of others. When we construct shared models of work practice for collaborative work, we need not reconcile the differences, we need only to provide a structure that can accommodate individual and contextual differences. The key to understanding, is the structural consistency in which assertions made in our model can be related to what we are modeling. If our purpose is to improve the work practice then the value of our model will be in revealing relationships and features that we may have otherwise overlooked. The challenge of interpretation then, is that of dueling inquires: what does the model reveal that is new, and what does the model hide in its incompleteness. If we return, to the previous example, we can see that behavior is influenced by the tools and places in which we work, in this case the convenience of interaction. Eventually, as we become more familiar with our tools and our workplace, these patterns of behavior become internalized in our models of work practice. When we don't want to be disturbed we close the door. In this model of the workplace, the function of the door is to avoid unwelcome interaction, by providing privacy and maybe security. The door provides a way to control, or at least influence, interactions. When we move to an open office layout, without doors, we naturally feel the loss of privacy. If we apply our model of the door to the new context, we would look for solutions that meet our need for privacy. First, we would consider those properties of the door that provided Chapter One Modeling WorkPlaces privacy, such as enclosure and visual and acoustic separation. Next we might consider a 'do not disturb' sign. If all else fails we might resolve to relocate. What our model hides is that the door did not function without the mutually adapted convention for its use (in this case that a closed door implies 'do not disturb'). The promise of modeling work processes and work settings is to provide insight on existing practice, to explore alternatives for new ideas, and to generate inquiry into meaningful design. The challenge is to see beneath the surface, to reveal the hidden structures that influence the construction and interpretation of models that generate solutions and preclude others.