Reducing Conflicts in Groupware - Semantic Scholar

in: Behaviour & Information Technology, 1996, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 339 - 351

Reducing Conflicts in Groupware: Metafunctions and their Empirical Evaluation

Volker Wulf and Markus Rohde Institute for Computer Science III, University of Bonn Römerstraße 164, 53117 Bonn, Tel: 0228/ 550-276, Fax: 0228/ 550-382, mail: @cs.uni-bonn.de

Abstract: Certain functions in groupware affect more than one user who might have conflicting interests. To describe conflicts arising from the use of groupware functions, we distinguish the roles of the activator and the user affected. As technical means to lessen these conflicts, we develop two metafunctions: visibility of use and negotiability. We expect that these metafunctions reduce role-based conflicts and lead to higher acceptance of groupware-systems among users. To examine these hypotheses we performed an empirical study in six different organizations. Using scenarios to present different design options to users, we confirmed most of our assumptions. Implications of these findings for the design of groupware are discussed.

1. Introduction Groupware supports communication and cooperation among its users. Contrary to single user applications, certain groupware functions affect more than one user. In the following we want to investigate potential conflicts between the end users who make active use of a special function and those who are merely affected by that activation. In the current literature on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) it is assumed that cooperative work implies the existence of conflicts among the individuals involved. Schmidt (1991) states

that "a cooperative work process is performed by individuals with individual interests and motives. Because of that, cooperative ensembles are coalitions of diverging and even conflicting interests rather than perfect collaborative systems" (p. 9). In a survey of the literature on conflict issues, which is most relevant to the CSCW community, Easterbrook et al. (1993, p. 15) conclude that tensions which lead to conflicts are apparent in most groups working together. Some of these conflicts are not related to the existence of groupware, others have to be considered when designing certain groupware applications. In this paper we want to investigate conflicts which are related to usage or modification of flexibly designed groupware functions. Supplying end users with different options to choose from, flexible functions contain a potential for conflict. This potential may be reduced or enhanced by other sources of conflict such as scarce resources, time pressure or personal animosities. Thus, when applying groupware we assume that conflicts related to certain flexible functions will become obvious. Case studies on the usage of groupware show that flexible functions lead to conflicts. Thus, Cool et al. (1992) report on conflicts among users of certain functions of a video communication system. Wulf and Hartmann (1994) describe such conflicts related to certain features of network visibility in office procedure systems. Flexibility is a main requirement for the design of groupware to adapt the functions to changing demands from its context of use. Different approaches for achieving flexibility are discussed in the current CSCW literature (cf. Trigg, Moran, Halasz 1987; Malone et al. 1988; Hiltz and Turoff 1989; Greenberg 1991; Henderson and Kyng 1991; Kaplan et al. 1992; Malone, Lai, Fry 1992; Wulf 1996). In a presentation of their approach labeled as "tailorability", Henderson and Kyng (1991) develop useful concepts for structuring the field. According to their approach, tailoring can be performed by end users themselves as well as by programmers. With regard to the complexity of interventions in the software the authors distinguish three levels of tailoring activity (pp. 225):

- choosing between alternatives of anticipated behaviour - constructing new behaviour from existing pieces

- altering the artifact.

We will focus on conflicts arising from end users' choice between different alternatives of anticipated behaviour. On this low level of intervention the distinction between usage and modification is rather blurred (cf. Henderson, Kyng 1991, pp. 223). In the following we present two examples of approaches which offer this type of flexibility to their users. Malone et al. have developed object oriented techniques to allow end users to modify applications. In the information lens system, an information management tool for mail and news, end users can configurate their own filtering tools for incoming mail (cf. Malone et al. 1988, p. 318). Greenberg presents a shared window application (SHARE) in which individuals and groups can select from six different floor control policies. To motivate his approach he works out the concept of personalizable groupware, which is defined as "groupware whose behaviour can be tailored to match the particular needs of group participants (i. e. each member of the group may observe a different behaviour), and the particular needs of the group as a whole (i. e. each group may observe a different collective behaviour)" (Greenberg 1991, p. 27). In both of the approaches presented, potential conflicts among end users with regard to the use of system's flexibility have not been discussed explicitly. But Greenberg's above mentioned definition distinguishes between functions which can be tailored according to the needs of single end users and other functions whose modification affect the whole group of users. Functions which affect more than one user are likely to cause conflicts among users. We want to discuss such conflicts using the concept of roles. Groupware always supports interaction between users. In every technically mediated interaction different roles can be found. A role describes a specific position held by users within this interaction. We will distinguish the role of the activator from the one of the user affected. The activator decides which functional alternative will be chosen whereas other users are affected by the activator's choice. The role of users can change in each situation of use. In the first case somebody activates a function and in the next interaction he is affected by another person's use. Thus, the concept of roles allows us to draw

general conclusions about the consequences of certain functions for different users in the same position. In this sense Cool et al. (1992, p. 30) used roles to describe conflicts caused by functions of a video communication system, too. In the following we will examine empirically how usage and modification of flexible functions cause rolebased conflicts among users and whether there exist technical means to reduce them. Thus, in chapter 2 we propose metafunctions which support users in handling such conflicts. Chapters 3 and 4 clarify the hypothesis and the design of the empirical study. The results of this investigation are presented in chapter 5 and discussed in chapter 6. Finally we consider some general implications for the design of groupware resulting from our study.

2. Metafunctions to Reduce Conflicts in Groupware In the majority of groupware applications, potential conflicts between the activator and the users affected concerning the usage of the flexible function have not been a design issue. Therefore, they have been always solved in favour of the activator. As functions in these applications did not affect anybody except the activator, he had full control over these functions. We refer to this strategy of conflict management as controllability (cf. ISO 9241 part 10).

Figure 1 gives a survey on the process of activation on the level of controllability. In the upper part of the figure the given alternatives of a flexible function are represented. In the lower part the process of activation is graphically displayed. The activator selects the functional alternative which is suitable for his specific working conditions and task. His intention to use the function in a certain way is directly put into force. The users affected are often neither informed nor do they have the chance to intervene against the activator's decision. This strategy of conflict management is derived from single users' applications.

Taking into account that the functions of groupware can affect more users than just the activator, this strategy seems to provoke conflicts among the different roles by favouring the activator's position. Therefore, we propose two metafunctions which are supposed to diminish these conflicts by offering additional technical features to the role of the user affected. The first metafunction we refer to is visibility of use (cf. Herrmann, Wulf, Hartmann 1996). The activator stays in control over the function but his choice becomes visible to the users affected. Thus they either automatically get a message indicating the activator's decision or are equipped with a log-file where the activator´s decision is registered. Figure 2 gives a survey on how to activate a function on the level of visibility of use. The grey box indicates the visibility of use given to the users affected. Although they cannot technically intervene against his choice within the application, they get informed about the activator´s choice and - therefore - can react in a social way. For instance, they can try to intervene by using other communication channels or by modifying their plans in a way that potential disadvantages caused by the activation will be reduced.

In a study of collaborative writing applications Dourish and Belotti (1992) have stressed the importance of shared feedback to improve the joint work process by making activities automatically visible to the other group members (pp. 109). We expect visibility to have a similar effect regarding the system's flexibility. We assume that all users would prefer an implementation of the system's flexibility which provides the users affected with visibility of use rather than one in which the users affected are not given this information.

Besides visibility of use, a second metafunction which improves the participation of the users affected is negotiability. With this metafunction the affected user can even intervene against the decision of the activator. Therefore, this metafunction provides an additional channel of communication within the

groupware application. This channel is opened only at the moment a flexible function is activated and it is closed again when the technically supported process of negotiation is finished. Negotiability as a metafunction controls the process of negotiation by offering certain acts of negotiation to the users (e. g. proposal, agreement, disagreement, counter-proposal) and by achieving the result of the users' negotiations automatically (cf. Wulf 1995, pp. 144 and 1993, pp. 987; Herrmann 1995, pp. 90). Negotiability applies the principle of the coordinator´s conversations for action (cf. Winograd 1988, pp. 627) to the handling of conflicts concerning the activation of flexible functions. Negotiability can be achieved in different ways. In this paper we distinguish structured versions of this metafunction from semi-structured versions and single loop from double loop versions. We speak about structured negotiability when each act of negotiation merely indicates its type and the functional alternative selected by the user. Structured negotiability does not allow the users to exchange more information (e. g. give reasons for their decision) but it is very efficient timewise (as the input can be activated by just pushing buttons on an input device). We speak about semi-structured negotiability when users have an additional technical opportunity to explain reasons for their decision within each single act of negotiation. Such additional opportunities may consist of a field of non-structured text or an additional one way voice channel which will be connected to single acts of negotiation (cf. Wulf 1993, pp. 988). Single loop negotiability restricts the process of negotiation to two acts. There is a proposal from the activator and an agreement or disagreement from the users affected. We talk about double-loop-negotiability if the process of technically supported negotiation allows a second loop to give the activator and the user affected the chance to continue the process of negotiation based on the statements made in the first loop. The process of activation of a flexible function on the level of negotiability is presented in figure 3.

The activator intending to use a function opens up a channel by which the user affected is informed about his choice. This is indicated by the underlying grey colour in the user´s effected box in figure 3. In case of single loop negotiability the user affected can either agree or disagree on the proposed alternative. If he agrees, the activator will be informed about it and the jointly chosen alternative will be activated. If he disagrees, a default option which has been selected in advance during the process of configuration of the system will become active. In case of double loop negotiability the user affected has more possibilities to react. For example, he could have the chance to express a counterproposal. In this case, the activator will be informed about it and has the chance to respond to the affected user´s reaction. In case people do not work at the same place and time, we believe that applying negotiability to a flexible groupware function will lessen conflicting interests to an even greater extent than visibility of use does. This is due to the fact that the position of the users affected has been strengthened to a wider extend.

An example for the application of these metafunctions can be seen in the development of the glance function in the RAVE video environment. This function gives flexibility to the activator by offering technical means to open up one-way video connections to various other users of the system. Originally, the users affected neither had visibility nor could they intervene against the activator's decision to look into their offices (cf. Gaver et al. 1992, p. 27). This implementation of the glance-function obviously violates their privacy (cf. Gaver et al. 1992, pp. 29; Dourish 1993, p. 127). Therefore, additional mechanisms were developed which give visibility of use to the users affected. This was achieved by sound notification in case of a connection (e. g. the sound of a squeaky door opening when a connection was made) (cf. Lovstrand 1991, pp. 273). Furthermore, a semi-autonomous gatekeeper was developed to enable potentially affected users to reject certain glance connections technically which have been proposed by the activator. The users supply this function with parameters expressing their individual preferences. These record the details of which connections should be accepted, which should be rejected, and which should cause the gatekeeper to interrupt the user to seek confirmation (cf. Dourish 1993, pp. 127). By the introduction of the gatekeeper´s option to seek confirmation the glance function became negotiable because now the users

affected could get informed and intervene against the activator's intention. The solution implemented is a single loop and structured variant of negotiability.

Having explained the general concepts we will now present hypotheses for the empirical study and explain our methods.

3. Hypotheses

We were interested whether the application of metafunctions would have a lessening effect on conflicts related to the activation of flexible functions. Therefore, we looked at flexible groupware functions in work settings where we expected conflicting interests in the use of these functions. We assumed that conflicting interests between the role of the activator and of the user affected would exist on the level of controllability. To examine this assumption we asked end users to evaluate such functions either in the role of the activator or in the role of the user affected. As an indication for a conflict of interests among these groups we used differences in their subjective judgements on these functions.

Hypothesis 1: There are different ratings on groupware functions depending on the role played by the users.

We assumed that applying metafunctions to flexible groupware functions reduces these conflicts of interest among end users playing different roles:

Hypothesis 2: The introduction of the metafunctions visibility of use and negotiability reduces the differences in subjective ratings compared to the level of controllability.

Moreover, we were interested in the overall judgement of the users regardless of their role. We assumed that end users in general would prefer the usage of metafunctions rather than a situation in which the activator has exclusive control of flexible functions:

Hypothesis 3: Metafunctions in groupware are rated higher than controllability.

The next hypothesis is based on the assumption that even the activator will recognize the advantages of visibility and negotiability in tele-cooperative interaction:

Hypothesis 3.1: Hypothesis 3 is true for the subgroup of activators, as well.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that visibility of use and negotiability will induce differing judgements. Thus, in our following hypotheses we will look at visibility of use and negotiability seperately.

Hypothesis 4: Visibility of use is rated higher than controllability.

The metafunction visibility of use gives information about the actor's behaviour to the user affected. This metafunction might be disadvantageous to the activator by making his behaviour visible but there are clear advantanges for the user affected. Applying groupware in a cooperative setting, we assume that the activator would anticipate the position of the user affected (in which he himselve could be in the next interaction) and, therefore, prefer visibility.


Furthermore, we expect that the judgements on the negotiability-scenarios as a whole will be better than those on controllability.

Hypothesis 5: Negotiability is rated higher than controllability.

The metafunction negotiability means even greater restrictions for the activator's autonomy. As activator and user affected are cooperating using groupware, we assume that activators would anticipate the problems of users affected to a certain degree. Thus, we assume that the judgements on negotiability will be better than the judgements on controllability even within the subgroup of activators .


4. Empirical Design To evaluate our hypotheses we used a questionnaire. We assume that the handling of conflicts is related to the organizational environment of the groupware application. Thus, we were interested to examine our hypotheses outside of the scientific community and within different organizations. As metafunctions are not yet implemented in generally used applications, we were forced to use scenarios presented on questionnaires to visualize the different design options. Furthermore, the decision to chose this method was based on:

-

our intention to question as many end users as possible,

-

our intention to question them not in an artificial, experimental laboratory situation, but in their

own

familiar everyday work context and

-

the necessity to survey judgements on specific situational options in relation to a range of other possible interaction situations.

Thus, we decided to run a field-experimental study with a questionnaire in the interviewees' daily working environment. They were assigned different questionnaire-versions (experimental conditions) at random.

These versions of the questionnaire contained specific sequences of short scenarios in which we operationalized our independent variables. We developed an empirical design which consisted of two fields of application with six functional levels in each of these fields. We first described a start-up situation and then offered the activator flexibility by introducing an additional function on whose use he could decide (level of controllability). On the levels of the metafunctions visibility of use, structured single loop negotiability, semi-structured single loop negotiability, and structured double loop negotiability were introduced (one after another). As we were interested in investigating conflicting interests resulting from different roles, we described each functional level in both of the fields of application from both perspectives: that of the activator and that of the user affected (cf. Rohde 1995, Wulf 1996).

Figure 4 gives an overview of the pool of 24 scenarios used for the empirical study. We constructed the questionnaires from this pool. Each of them consisted of 12 scenarios. The first block of 6 scenarios described all functional levels of the first field of application from the perspective of one role. The other block of 6 scenarios was taken from the second field of application using the same method of selection. This combination resulted in four different questionnaires. To let the order of the scenarios not affect the findings, we arranged them at random within each block and used numbers to label them all the way through. Next we organized them in two different ways, first in ascending order and then in descending order. Thus we had 8 different questionnaires which we distributed to the interviewees. We asked the interviewees to judge each of the scenarios presented according to five dimensions which were derived from work psychological concepts (cf. Hacker 1986, Volpert 1990, Ulich 1991). These dimensions were:

-

acceptance (of given conditions of interaction),

-

facilitation (of the conditions for their task),

-

individual autonomy (the situational conditions offered for interaction),

-

the mental workload (the situational condition causes) and

-

the (subjectively estimated) time needed (for the task under the conditions given).

Each dimension had to be answered on a scale of four.

To create a comparable situational context of interaction at the beginning of our questionnaire we offered the same basic situation to all interviewees. We asked the subjects to put themselves in the position of an office worker (in an administration) with a telephone and a networked computer-terminal at their workplace. They had to work on office procedures and their tasks had to be fulfilled according to schedule. We had performed an explorative study before to ascertain that employees in administration were rather familiar with these working conditions. In that former empirical research we had studied problems of workers using groupware. Based on these findings we chose two fields of application to examine the capability of metafunctions to moderate conflicts related to the activation of flexible functions. The first field of application deals with conflicts related to disturbances caused by incoming telephone calls. We had found such conflicts in our explorative study. On the one side office workers complained about the frequence of disturbances by incoming phone calls on the other side they had problems to get hold of the called person (cf. Kahler 1994). In the start-up scenarios we describe, therefore, a situation, in which the recipient is disturbed by incoming phone-calls without technical support to protect himself from these disturbances. On the other hand, the caller tries to get hold of him by telephone, knowing that there would not be any automatic cut-off. On the level of controllability we equip the recipient of the telephone call with a cut-off function. He can decide whether to use it or not. Thus he takes on the role of the activator of the cut-off function. The caller playes the role of the user affected by this function. He can neither see whether it is active nor intervene against the activator's choice.

On the level of visibility of use an additional metafunction is introduced on behalf of the user affected. The caller is informed whether the recipient has switched on the cut-off function and for how long this function will stay active. To clarify our method we will present scenarios describing the level of visibility of use as well from the perspective of the activator as also from the one of the user affected.

During your work it often happens that you are interrupted by the ringing of the telephone. You have the possibility to cut off incoming calls, which means that you can turn off the bell at you telephone device to avoid incoming calls for a certain period of time. To be able to perform your current task you have activated the cut off function. The caller will be informed (e.g. by a signal on his device) whether and for how long you have set up the cut-off function. Scenario: Cut-off phone calls on the level of visibility of use (role of the activator)

To continue your task you need additional information. You try to get hold of a collegue who has this information. In your organization it is possible to cut off incoming phone calls, which means that it is possible to turn off the bell for a certain period of time. You call but nobody answers. On your telephone device there is a display on which you can see whether and for how long your collegue has set up the cut-off function. Scenario: Cut-off phone calls on the level of visibility of use (role of the user affected)

As the caller is affected by the cut-off function on the level of structured, single loop negotiability he is equipped with technical option to intervene against the activator's decision. He can push an extra button

on his telephone device to break the recipient's cut-off. In this case the recipient can either accept this demand or he himself can push a button to prevent further ringing. In the case of the semi-structured variant of single loop negotiability the caller can explain his demand to deactivate the recipient's cut-off function by a one way voice channel. The caller can either accept the call or, when refusing it, he can send a short explanatory voice message. On the level of double-loop negotiability the caller gets the chance to repeat his demand if the recipient has not responded positively to his first attempt by pushing the button again. In the second loop of negotiation the recipient can respond by reducing the duration of his cut-off.

As the second field of application we chose problems resulting from conflicting demands to access documents in an office procedure. Such conflicts have been reported by Kreifelts et al. (1991). Testing an office procedure system which supported the process of purchasing equipment in a research institute, they reported that, "the strict input/output relations between the actions of a procedure do not allow the data produced in one action to be changed in a subsequent action. .... This was a source of much discussion and we had to employ a work-around for some cases" (ibidem, pp. 126). In the start-up scenario we described a working situation of rigid access control. Having mailed a document the sender cannot regain access for this document in order to do necessary corrections. On the level of controllability a new function is introduced. As long as the document has not been used by the recipient, the sender, qua activator, gets technical support to reaccess the document after having sent it. On the other side, the recipient is not provided with any information about the sender's activities. On the level of visibility of use the recipient, the user affected is informed about the sender's access and its duration. On the level of negotiability the recipient gets additional technical support to intervene against the sender's access. Regarding the structured single-loop variant of negotiablity the sender is equipped with a screenbutton to ask for access to the mailed document. Only if the recipient agrees by pushing another button the access will be permitted by the system.

Looking at the semi-structured variant of single-loop negotiability the sender is given an additional textwindow by which he can explain the reasons for his intended access. The recipient can either permit access, or else he is equipped with a similar facility by which he can explain the reasons for his disagreement. We will present two more scenarios describing this level of metafunctions as well from the perspective of the activator as also from that of the user affected.

During your work you notice that you have to reaccess an office procedure on which you had already finished to work. You made it already available to the next collegue who is responsible now. If you need to reaccess this document you can type a free style text which will be displayed in a window on your collegue´s screen. After having received your demand, your collegue can decide whether he permits you to reaccess the document or he can use a similar window to explain why he does not allow access, right now. Scenario: Office procedure on the level of single-loop semi-structured negotiability (role of the activator)

Processing an office procedure in its regular sequence, it is up to you to work on it. If one of your collegues wants to reaccess this document beyond the regular sequence (e.g. because of additional processing) this will be indicated to you via an opening window on your screen by which your collegue can express his demand and give reasons for it using free style text. Now you can either allow him to access the document or you can use a similar window on his screen to explain why this is not possible, right now. Scenario: Office procedure on the level of single-loop semi-structured negotiability (role of the user affected)

Finally, on the level of double-loop negotiability the sender has the chance to insist on his demand by sending a second structured message to the recipient which indicates that his demand is urgent. In this case the recipient has the option either to agree or to disagree. In case of disagreement he can commit himself to allowing the sender access after a certain time.

5. Empirical results We distributed 488 questionnaires to six private companies and one public administration. We got back 89 answered questionnaires at a return rate of 18.24 percent. This low response rate might be caused by the size of our questionnaire (15 pages) and its purely text based layout (cf. previous chapter). The age of our interviewees ranged from 21 to 61 with an average age of 34.7. We got answers from 69.7 % female and 30.3 % male interviewees. 68.5 % of these had experience with networking as end users, 11.2 % as system administrators. 79.7 % of the participants in our study were familiar with our basic situation of an office worker equipped with a networked computer-terminal and working on office procedures. Figure 5 shows a graphical illustration of some selected mean values.

Similar patterns can be observed in both fields of application with regard to the judgements of the different roles. Furthermore, this figure immediately makes it clear that differences exist in judging the particular scenarios at every functional level. The MANOVA-results support this superficial impression. To catch the main effect (that means to test whether there is any effect on judgements related to our scenarios and scales at all) and the first interaction effect judgement x role, which is crucial for our first hypothesis, we ran a MANOVA-procedure, which is necessary also to exclude potential sources of interference (e. g. sequence-effects). The MANOVA was characterized by a 2x2x5 factorial plan (field of application x role x functional level) and repeated measures on the third factor. Some of our interviewees were investigated in experimental conditions, in which they had to change role, others were not. Thus e. g. for all the people who had to answer the first block of scenarios as the activator and the second block as a user affected, we computed 'within designs' as 'between designs'. The main effect judgement (concerning the various scenarios and work conditions) is significant for all five dimensions (Pillais Trace testscores with p < 0.0005). A probability p(sig/F) < .05 means a significant

result, p(sig/F) ≥ .05 means that there is not a significant effect. The interaction effects judgement x role (cf. Hyp. 2) are significant for all five dimensions (p < 0.0005). The effect judgement x field of application is significant for the dimensions acceptance, facilitation, workload and time needed. There is no significant interaction effect judgement x field of application to be found on the autonomy-scale. The analysis of variance does not show any significant order- or sequenceeffects (cf. Rohde 1994, pp. 163). This last result proofs that there was no interfering effect of our experimental design. Furthermore, we computed ANOVAs in order to test our second hypothesis. We computed role-effects concerning judgements about controllability and compared them to role effects on the levels of the metafunctions (visibility and negotiability). We ran ANOVAs first for the judgements on controllability, then for the aggregated judgements on metafunctions. In the case of controllability we found significant interaction effects which disappear in the case of the metafunctions. None of the interactions is significant. These results are presented in table 1.

Our Hypotheses 3, 3.1, 4, 4.1, 5 and 5.1 were tested with the non-parametric Chi-square-routine. To test hypothesis 3, we computed the differences in judgement concerning the functional level controllability and the aggregated metafunctions. To test hypothesis 4, we computed the differences in judgements between the levels of controllability and visibility of use. Regarding hypothesis 5, we computed differences in judgement between controllability and the three types of negotiability . Every negative difference reflects an equal or better judgement for the controllability, every positive difference means a better judgement for the metafunctions. Subsequently we tested all the negative against all the positive differences with the Chisquare-test. Table 2 presents the Chi-square-results for the difference between controllability on the one hand and the aggregated metafunctions on the other. In the first section of the table the results of the tests are given for the whole sample, in the second section for the subgroup activators.

In the last column of the second section of the table, we have introduced a column for prefixes because in this subgroup the results cannot be interpreted merely by looking at the level of significance. As we have tested unidirected hypotheses with a bi-directional statistical method (Chi-Square) we have to consider the direction of the differences in judgements additionally. Thus, a positive prefix indicates that the hypothesis has been supported by the results of the tests. A negative prefix demonstrates the fact that the hypothesis has not been supported. Looking at the judgements of all interviewed persons in table 3, we find significant preference for the metafunctions on every scale but the time needed-dimension. The results of the subgroup of activators support our hypothesis only concerning the scales of acceptance and of subjectively estimated autonomy. The judgements on the other scales lead us to the rejection of our hypothesis, because either there are not any significant results, or the significance of the test points into the wrong direction (time needed-scale).

Figure 5 reveals that the judgements on the metafunction visibility of use and on negotiability differ. Thus, we compared both of these metafunctions individually with the judgement on controllability. Table 3 presents chi-square-results concerning the comparison of controllability with visibility of use for all interviewees and for the subgroup activators. The differences in judgements of the whole sample indicate a preference for visibility on the scales of acceptance, facilitation and autonomy. Within the subgroup of activators it is interesting, that there is a significant preference for visibility even on the time needed-scale. There is no significant preference for visibility compared to controllability on the scales of facilitation and workload scales.

Table 4 demonstrates the result of the chi-square-tests comparing aggregated judgements on negotiability (structured single loop, structured double loop and semi-structured single loop) with the judgements on controllability. Looking at the whole sample we find a preference for negotiability on every scale except the time needed-scale. The subgroup activators prefers significantly negotiability on the scales of acceptance and autonomy. For the judgements on the scales of facilitation, workload, and time needed our hypothesis has to be rejected.

6. Discussion The study presented evaluates the effects of metafunctions to handle conflicts in groupware. As metafunctions are not yet implemented on a broad basis, we decided to use scenarios presented on questionnaires to visualize the different design options. Thus, the interviewees had to understand the different options and to anticipate their behaviour. This might affect the external validity. Taking the reciprocity between internal and external validity into account, we decided to perform a field study with a big number of probants and to vary our independend variables following an experimental plan. This method stresses the internal validity in comparison to interviews and the external validity in comparison to a laboratory experiment (cf. Klein and Rohde 1994). Based on these methodological considerations we presented two different fields of application to the interviewees. The empirical results of the study presented show, that end users in groupware come to different subjective judgements on specific technical design options. These differences depend on their role either as activator or as users affected as postulated in hypothesis 1. Furthermore, these conflicts of interest seem to vary with the field of application. We assume that these differences in judgement indicate differences of interest. These differences of interest may lead to role-based conflicts when technically mediated interaction takes place. To mediate these conflicts by technical means, we have introduced metafunctions which strengthen the position of the users affected. The metafunctions visibility of use and

negotiability reduce these differences of judgement as can be seen in table 1. These findings support hypothesis 2. The chi-square-analysis indicates a general preference for aggregated metafunctions in comparison to the functional level of controllability (cf. hyp. 3 and table 2) and the same for each single metafunction visibility of use (cf. hyp. 4 and table 3) and negotiability (cf. hyp. 5 and table 4). This preference for metafunctions cannot always be found for the workload- and time needed-scales. Regarding the judgements on all the aggregated metafunctions (cf. table 2) and on the negotiability conditions (cf. table 4) the absence of the expected effect on the time needed-scale can be observed; in the case of visibility of use (cf. table 3) there is neither an effect on the workload- nor on the time needed-scale. Nevertheless, the whole sample consisting of interviewees playing both of the roles expresses higher acceptance for metafunctions compared to controllability. Although they notice that the use of metafunctions - and especially of negotiability - increases their workload and consumes extra time, this subgroup expresses higher acceptance for metafunctions. Considering the judgements of the subgroup activators, they do not rate metafunctions significantly higher on the scales of facilitation, workload, and time needed. Nevertheless, even this subgroup expresses higher acceptance for the metafunctions. Thus, even the subgroup of activators prefers metafunctions in comparison with the functional level of controllability. The activators clearly anticipated the affected users' position. They accepted disadvantages for themselves in order to improve the performance of the collaborative ensemble. Theses results are inconsistent with findings of Cool et al. (1992). They report on conflicting interests among users who were asked to evaluate functions of a video communication system. The authors concluded that "one difficult problem ..... is that few users take the group perspective" (p. 30). Expressing higher acceptance for metafunctions compared to controllability, our interviewees in the subgroup of activators took the position of other groupware users into consideration. Contrary to Cool et al. we used scenarios instead of real systems to investigate on conflicts. Therefore, our interviewees could not experience the emotional effect of beeing in a certain role for a longer period of time. Nevertheless, the results of Cool et al. were just based on one single organizational unit. Thus, their findings could be rather

based on patterns of conflict handling in the organization observed than a general phanomen of the application of certain groupware functions. These contradictive findings seem to indicate that further research is required to find out under which circumstances users of groupware anticipate other users' position. Moreover, our study reveals that visibility of use and negotiability are expected to cause additional (information) workload and to take time. Comparing controllability just with double loop structured negotiability and single loop semi-structured negotiability, we found simular results (cf. Rohde and Wulf 1996). These possible disadvantages lead us to the conclusion, that the metafunctions have to respect the users' needs and have to be incorporated flexibly. Nevertheless, the metafunctions found greater acceptance as a whole.

7. Conclusion In the fields of application investigated in our study metafunctions not only reduce role-based differences in judgement but they also lead to better overall judgements compared to functions which are merely controllable by the activator. Thus, metafunctions proved to be useful means for reducing role-based conflicts and for increasing overall acceptance. We believe that besides telephone and office procedure systems, these results are meaningful for other applications, as well. Whenever a function which offers different options of anticipated behaviour affects more than one user, the application of metafunctions should be considered. Metafunctions are of special importance if there are not any other channels of communication among users to cope with role-based conflicts. This is often the case when groupware is used locally distributed or asynchronously. The choice of the best suited metafunction depends on the flexible function itself and on the context of application. This choice itself can cause conflicts because users playing different roles might prefer different metafunctions. For instance figure 5 reveals that activators prefer visibility of use while users affected rate single loop negotiability higher in our study. Therefore, decisions on metafunctions should be drawn collectively by users involved during the process of configuration of the groupware. To facilitate

this type of group-oriented configuration different metafunctions should be implemented during the design process in such a way that end users can apply them flexibly to certain functions. Thus, metafunctions should be designed flexibly themselves to allow configuration. If certain of their parameters should remain flexible after configuration, metafunctions can be applied to themselves to ease locally distributed or asynchronous adaptation. Kirsche et al. (1994) have proposed such mechanisms for metafunctions that realize collaborative consistency control on databases. Due to the increase of complexity caused by hierarchy of metalevels, such an application of metafunctions should be rather restrictively used. We found metafunctions beeing a useful means for a human-centered design of groupware because they promote the process of cooperative decision-making on system flexibility. Nevertheless, depending on the organizational context of use metafunction may cause privacy problems for the activator and may replace less structured communication or even face-to-face meetings among users. From a methodological point of view our findings should be checked in further studies with additional empirical methods. When metafunctions will be implemented in widely used applications, alternative studies with different empirical methods will be possible. Thus, further research on groupware equipped with metafunctions is required to explore their potentials in practice.

8. Acknowledgements We would like to thank to the many interviewees for the time they spend answering our questions. Many thanks to our collegues Anja Hartmann, Thomas Herrmann, Helge Kahler, Ludger Klein and Markus Rittenbruch for their support to carry out this study.

9. References Belotti, V., Sellen, A. 1993, Design for Privacy in Ubiquitous Computing Environments, in: G. de Michelis, C. Simone, K. Schmidt (eds), Proceedings of the Third Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work - ECSCW '93 (Kluwer, Dordrecht, NL), 77 - 92.

Cool, C., Fish, R.S., Kraut, R.E., Lowery, C.M. 1992, Interactive Design of Video Communication Systems, in: CSCW '92. Sharing Perspectives. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, (ACM Press, New York), 25 - 32. Dourish, P. 1993, Culture and Control in a Media Space, in: G. de Michelis, C. Simone, K. Schmidt (eds), Proceedings of the Third Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work - ECSCW '93 (Kluwer, Dordrecht, NL), 125 - 138. Dourish, P., Belotti, V. 1992, Awareness and Coordination in Shared Workspaces, in: CSCW '92. Sharing Perspectives. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, (ACM Press, New York), 107 - 114 Easterbrook, S. M., Beck E. E., Goodet, J. S., Plowman, L., Shaples, M., Wood, C. C. 1993: A Survey of Empirical Studies of Conflict, in: Easterbrook, S. (ed.), CSCW: Cooperation or Conflict (Springer, London et al), 1 - 68. Gaver, W., Moran, T., MacLean, A., Lövstrand, L., Dourish, P., Carter, K., Buxton, W. 1992, Realizing a Video Environment 1992: EuroParc's Rave System, in: Proceedings of CHI (Monterey, Cal. May 3- 7 1992), New York, 27 - 35. Greenberg, S. 1991, Personizable Groupware: Accommodating individual roles and group differences, in: L. Bannon, M. Robinson and K. Schmidt (eds), Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, (Kluwer, Dordrecht, NL), 17 - 31. Hacker, W. 1986, Arbeitspsychologie. Psychische Regulation von Arbeitstätigkeiten (VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin). Henderson, A. and Kyng, M. 1991, There's No Place Like Home: Continuing Design in Use, in: J. Greenbaum, M. Kyng: Design at Work - Cooperative Design of Computer Artifacts, (Hillsdale), 219 - 240. Herrmann, T. 1995, Workflow Management Systems: Ensuring Organizational Flexibility by Possibilities of Adaptation and Negotiation, in: Proceedings of the Conference on Organizational Computing Systems (COOCS), (ACM-Press, New York), pp. 83 - 96.

Herrmann, T., Wulf, V. and Hartmann, A. 1996, Requirements for a Human-centred Design of Groupware, in: Shapiro, D., Tauber, M., Traunmüller, R. (eds), Design of Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Groupware Systems (North Holland, Amsterdam), 77 - 100. ISO 9241 1993, Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) Part 10: Dialogue Principles, 1st DIS, February 2. Kahler, H. 1994, Von der Empirie zur Gestaltungsanforderung - Beispiele für den Einfluß explorativer Empirie auf die Entwicklung von Gestaltungsanforderungen für Groupware, in: Hartmann, A., Herrmann, Th., Rohde, M. and Wulf, V. (eds): Menschengerechte Groupware - Softwareergonomische Gestaltung und partizipative Umsetzung (Stuttgart, Teubner), 109-124. Kaplan, S. M., Talone, W. J., Bogia, D. P., Bignoli, C. 1992, Flexible, Active Support for Collaborative Work with ConversationBuilder, in: CSCW '92. Sharing Perspectives. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, (ACM Press, New York), 378 - 385. Klein, L., Rohde, M. 1994: Der Szenariobogen. Herleitung und Evaluation software-ergonomischer Gestaltungsanforderungen, in: Hartmann, A., Herrmann, Th., Rohde, M., Wulf, V. (eds), Menschengerechte Groupware. Software-ergonomische Gestaltung und partizipative Umsetzung, (Teubner, Stuttgart), 173 - 194. Kirsche, T., Lenz, R., Ruf, T., Wedekind, H. 1994, Cooperative Problem Solving using Database Conversations, in: Proc. 10th Conf. on Data Engineering, Houston (TX), February 16 - 18, 1994, 134 - 143. Kreifelts, Th., Hinrichs, E., Klein, K.-H., Seuffert, P., Woetzel, G. 1991, Experiences with the DOMINOProcedure System, in: Bannon, L., Robinson, M.,Schmidt, K. (eds): Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Kluwer, Dordrecht, NL), 117 - 130 Lovstrand, L. 1991, Beeing Selectively Aware with the Khronica System, in L. Bannon, M. Robinson and K. Schmidt (eds), Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, (Kluwer, Dordrecht, NL), 1 - 16.

Malone, T.W., Grant, K.R., Lai, K.-Y., Rao, R. and Rosenblitt, D. 1988, Semistructured Messages are Surprisingly Useful for Computer-Supported Coordination, in: I. Greif (ed.), Computer-Supported Cooperated Work: A Book of Readings, (Morgan-Kaufmann, San Mateo), 311 - 334. Malone, T. W., Fry, Ch., Lai, K.-Y. 1992, Experiments with Oval: A Radically Tailorable Tool for Cooperative Work, in: CSCW '92. Sharing Perspectives. Proceedings of the Conference on ComputerSupported Cooperative Work, (ACM Press, New York), 289 - 297. Rohde, M. 1994, Evaluationsstudie zum Konzept gestufter Metafunktionen, in: Hartmann, A., Herrmann, Th., Rohde, M. and Wulf, V. (eds), Menschengerechte Groupware. Software - ergonomische Gestaltung und partizipative Umsetzung, (Teubner, Stuttgart), 151 - 172. Rohde, M. 1995: The Scenarionnaire - Empirical Evaluation of Software-ergonomical Requirements for Groupware. In: Anzai, Y., Ogawa, K., Mori, H. (eds.): Symbiosis of Human and Artifact, (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 333-341. Rohde, M., Wulf, V. 1996 An early Evaluation of Technical Mechanisms Supporting Negotiations in Groupware, in: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP´96), 12. - 14.6.1996 in Juan les Pins (France), in press Schmidt, K. 1991, Riding a Tiger or Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, in L. Bannon, M. Robinson and K. Schmidt (eds), Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, (Kluwer, Dordrecht, NL), 1 - 16. Trigg, R.H., Moran, T.P. and Halasz, F.G. 1987, Adaptability and tailorability in Note Cards, in: Bullinger, H.J., Shackel, B. (eds): Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT '87 (Elsevier: Amsterdam), 723 - 728. Turoff, M. , Foster, J. , Hiltz, S. R. , Kenneth, N. 1989, The TEIES Design and Objectives: Computer Mediated Communications and Tailorability, in: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Hawai International Conference on System Sciences IEEE Computer Society, 403 - 411. Ulich, E., 1991, Arbeitspsychologie (Poeschel, Zürich and Stuttgart).

Volpert, W., 1990, Welche Arbeit ist gut für den Menschen? Notizen zum Thema Menschenbild und Arbeitsgestaltung. In: F. Frei, I. Udris (eds): Das Bild der Arbeit (Bern), 23 - 40. Winograd, T. 1988, A Language / Action Perspective on the Design of Cooperative Work, in: Greif, Irene (ed.): CSCW: A Book of Readings (Morgan-Kaufmann, San Mateo), 311 - 334. Wulf, V. 1993, Negotiability: A Metafunction to Support Personalizable Groupware, in: G. Salvendy and M.J. Smith (eds): Human-Computer Interaction: Software and Hardware Interfaces, (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 985 - 990. Wulf, V. 1995, Negotiabilty: A Metafunction to Tailor Access to Data in Groupware, in: Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 14, No. 3, 143 - 155. Wulf, V. 1996: Konfliktmanagement bei Groupware, PhD-Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Dortmund. Wulf, V., Hartmann, A. 1994, The Ambivalence of Network's Visibility in an Organizational Context, in: Clement, A., Kolm, P., Wagner, I. (eds): NetWORKing: Connecting Workers in and between Organizations (North Holland, Amsterdam), 143 - 152.

A x

A: Activator

..

x'

* X X*

Alternatives of Function: F B: User Affected

B

Intention to activate Function: F

Activator A Proposal of Alternative X

Activation of F with Alternative X chosen by A

Figure 1: Activation of a flexible function on the level of controllability

A: Activator

A x

..

x'

B

* X X*

Alternatives of Function: F B: User Affected

Intention to activate Function: F

Activator A Proposal of Alternative X

User Affected B

Activation of F with Alternative X chosen by A

Figure 2: Activation of a flexible function on the level of visibility of use

Figure 3: Activation of a flexible function on the level of negotiability (cf. Wulf 1993 and1994)

Cut-off phone calls Activator

User Affected

Office Procedure Activator

User Affected

2-loop struct. negotiability 1-loop semi-structured negotiability 1-loop struct. negotiability




visibility

visibility

visibility

visibility

controllability

controllability

controllability

controllability

start up

start up

start up

start up

Figure 4: The pool of scenarios used in the empirical study

3,5 Start up

Mean Values

3 Controllability

2,5 Visibility 2

1,5

1 - loop struct. Negotiability

1

2 - loop struct. Negotiability 1 - loop semistruct. Negotiability

0,5 0

Activator

User Affected

Cut-off phone calls

Activator

User Affected

Office Procedure

Figure 5: Diagram of mean values of the acceptance-scale

controllability N

metafunctions

DF

F

p(sig/F)

MS

Eta

N

DF

F

p(sig/F)

MS

Eta

acceptance 173

1

10.943

0.001

8.939

0.25

173

1

0.316

0.575

2.611

0.04

facilitation

171

1

36.567