26 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2019
  2. Jan 2019
    1. For large-scale software systems, Van Roy believes we need to embrace a self-sufficient style of system design in which systems become self-configuring, healing, adapting, etc.. The system has components as first class entities (specified by closures), that can be manipulated through higher-order programming. Components communicate through message-passing. Named state and transactions support system configuration and maintenance. On top of this, the system itself should be designed as a set of interlocking feedback loops.

      This is aimed at System Design, from a distributed systems perspective.

  3. wendynorris.com wendynorris.com
    1. Zack [42] distinguished these four termsaccording to two dimensions: the nature of what is being processed and the consti-tution of the processing problem.The nature of what is being processed is either information or frames of ref-erence. With information, we mean “observations that have been cognitively pro-cessed and punctuated into coherent messages” [42]. Frames of reference [4, p.108], on the other hand, are the interpretative frames which provide the context forcreating and understanding information. There can be situations in which there is alack of information or a frame of reference, or too much information or too manyframes of reference to process.

      Description of information processing challenges and breakdowns.

      Uncertainty -- not enough information

      Complexity -- too much information

      Ambiguity -- lack of clear meaning

      Equivocality -- multiple meanings

    2. Ta b l e 3DERMIS design premises [29]

      Muhren and Walle use the 6 of the 9 most relevant design premises for the future information system design guidelines for DERMIS, another crisis management system

      Information focus (dealing with complexity)

      Crisis memory (creating historical frames of reference)

      Exceptions as norms (support changing frames of reference in fluid, unpredictable scenario)

      Scope and nature of crisis (support adaptable management depending on type of crisis)

      Information validity and timeliness (synergy of coping with uncertainty and creating frames of reference from relevant, known information)

      Free exchange of information (synergy of social context and creating useful/sharable frames of reference)

    3. For our research design, we drew on Walsham [33] and Klein and Myers [13],who provide comprehensive guidelines on how to conduct interpretive case studyresearch in the IS domain.

      Bookmarked as a reminder to get these papers which could be helpful for the participatory design study.

    4. The problems of managing information and managing frames of reference are“tightly linked in a mutually interacting loop” and require “managing informationand the systems that provide it” [42]. IS have been generally designed to overcomethe information problems from Table 1. Most IS are aimed at either storing and re-trieving information to reduce uncertainty, such as database management systemsand document repositories, or at analyzing and processing large amounts of infor-mation to reduce complexity, such as decision support systems [31]. However, aswe have previously discussed, information related strategies are not always helpfulin coping with a variety of potential meanings.Problems of interpretation and the creation and management of frames of refer-ence, which aids Sensemaking, have generally not been taken into account whendesigning IS. Most IS currently seem tointend the opposite because they aim atreplacing or suppressing the possibility tomake sense of situations.

      Description of problem in integrating sensemaking (interpretive information process) into structured data systems.

      information =/= data

    5. there is scarce research on how IS can support informa-tion processing challenges—specifically related to Sensemaking—in crisis manage-ment [14]

      Muhren and Walle also state that there are "few studies that use Sensemaking as an analytical lens for the design of information technology."

    6. Sensemaking is about contextual rationality, built out of vaguequestions, muddy answers, and negotiated agreements that attempt to reduce ambi-guity and equivocality. The genesis of Sensemaking is a lack of fit between whatwe expect and what we encounter [40]. With Sensemaking, one does not look at thequestion of “which course of action should we choose?”, but instead at an earlierpoint in time where users are unsure whether there is even a decision to be made,with questions such as “what is going on here, and should I even be asking this ques-tion just now?” [40]. This shows that Sensemaking is used to overcome situationsof ambiguity. When there are too many interpretations of an event, people engagein Sensemaking too, to reduce equivocality.

      Definition of sensemaking and how the process interacts with ambiguity and equivocality in framing information.

      "Sensemaking is about coping with information processing challenges of ambiguity and equivocality by dealing with frames of reference."

    7. Decision making is traditionally viewed as a sequential process of problem classifi-cation and definition, alternative generation, alternative evaluation, and selection ofthe best course of action [26]. This process is about strategic rationality, aimed atreducing uncertainty [6, 36]. Uncertainty can be reduced through objective analysisbecause it consists of clear questions for which answers exist [5, 40]. Complex-ity can also be reduced by objective analysis, as it requires restricting or reducingfactual information and associated linkages [42]

      Definition of decision making and how this process interacts with uncertainty and complexity in information.

      "Decision making is about coping with information processing challenges of uncertainty and complexity by dealing with information"

    8. The central problem requiring Sensemaking ismostly that there are too many potential meanings, and so acquiring informationcan sometimes help but often is not needed. Instead, triangulating information [34],socializing and exchanging different points of view [20], and thinking back of pre-vious experiences to place the current situation into context, as the retrospectionproperty showed us, are a few strategies that are likely to be more successful forSensemaking.

      Strategies for sensemaking

    9. Just as the information processing challenges from Table 1 are not mutually ex-clusive, Sensemaking and decision making cannot be separated, but instead operatesimultaneously. Meaning must be established and then sufficiently negotiated priorto acting on information [42]: Sensemaking shapes events into decisions, and deci-sion making clarifies what is happening [40].

      Interaction between sensemaking and decision making

    10. Weick et al. [41, p. 419] formulate a gripping conclusion on what the sevenSensemaking properties are all about: “Taken together these properties suggest thatincreased skill at Sensemaking should occur when people are socialized to makedo, be resilient, treat constraints as self-imposed, strive for plausibility, keep show-ing up, use retrospect to get a sense of direction, and articulate descriptions thatenergize. These are micro-level actions. They are small actions. But they are smallactions with large consequences.”

      Description of how the seven properties interact to foster sensemaking.

    11. The seven different properties of Sensemaking can be captured by the acronym SIRCOPE: Social context, Identity construction, Retrospection, Cue extraction, Ongo-ing projects, Plausibility, and Enactment [17–21, 37–39]

      "Weick distinguishes between seven properties of Sensemaking"

    12. Crisis environments are characterized by various types of information problemsthat complicate the response, such as inaccurate, late, superficial, irrelevant, unreli-able, and conflicting information [30, 32]. This poses difficulties for actors to makesense of what is going on and to take appropriate action. Such issues of informationprocessing are a major challenge for the field of crisis management, both concep-tually and empirically [19].

      Description of information problems in crisis environments.

    13. We use the theory of Sensemaking to study exactly this: how people makesense of their environment, and how they give meaning to what is happening. Sense-making is a crucial process in crises, as the manner and thereby the success of howone deals with crucial events is determined by the grasp one has of a situation.

      Sensemaking frame used in this study relies on work by Weick, et al.

    1. Value Sensitive Design (VSD) emphasizes consideration of stakeholder values when making design decisions [5]. Applying this rationale to the goal of leveraging the capacity of digital workers during crisis events, we identify design solutions that fit the underlying community dynamics, including current work practices, organizational structures, and motivations of digital volunteer work.

      Description of developing the design agenda, values, and needs assessment

      Cites Value Sensitive Design

    2. Our research reveals several design opportunities in this space. Importantly, informed by the empirical findings presented here, we argue for situating solutions within current work practices and infrastructures.

      Description of design opportunities

    1. By ignoring the diversity and discord of the ‘goals’ of theparticipants involved, the differentiation of strategies, and the incongruence of theconceptual frames of reference within a cooperating ensemble, much of the currentCSCW research evades the problem of how to provide computer support for peoplecooperating through the establishment of a common information space.

      Has this design challege been adequately addressed in CSCW (and CHI, for that matter) in the last 30-ish years?

    2. On the one hand, the visibility requirement is amplified by this divergence. Thatis, knowledge of the identity of the originator and the situational context motivat-ing the production and dissemination of the information is required so as to enableany user of the information to interpret the likely motives of the originator. On theother hand, however, the visibility requirement is moderated by the divergence ofinterests and motives. A certain degree of opaqueness is required for discretionarydecision making to be conducted in an environment charged with colliding inter-ests. Hence,visibility must be bounded.

      What role does system meta data (version control, user history, etc.) play in bounding the visibility of decision making?

      This also seems to be an area ripe for more collaborative design approaches (participatory, reflective, feminist, etc.)

    3. Thus, a computer-basedsystem supporting cooperative work involving decision making should enhancethe ability of cooperating workers to interrelate their partial and parochial domainknowledge and facilitate the expression and communication of alternative perspec-tives on a given problem. This requires a representation of the problem domainas a whole as well as a representation, in some form, of the mappings betweenperspectives on that problem domain.

      This seems to still be a major challenge in information system design as well as collaborative workflow. Even if the information/meta context is made available, do people use it?

  4. Dec 2018
    1. Theproblem, then, was centered by social scientists in the process of design. Cer-tainly, many studies in CSCW, HCI, information technology, and informa-tion science at least indirectly have emphasized a dichotomy betweendesigners, programmers, and implementers on one hand and the social ana-lyst on the other.

      Two different camps on how to resolve this problem:

      1) Change more flexible social activity/protocols to better align with technical limitations 2) Make systems more adaptable to ambiguity

    2. In particular, concurrency control problems arise when the software, data,and interface are distributed over several computers. Time delays when ex-changing potentially conflicting actions are especially worrisome. ... Ifconcurrency control is not established, people may invoke conflicting ac-tions. As a result, the group may become confused because displays are incon-sistent, and the groupware document corrupted due to events being handledout of order. (p. 207)

      This passage helps to explain the emphasis in CSCW papers on time/duration as a system design concern for workflow coordination (milliseconds between MTurk hits) versus time/representation considerations for system design

  5. Oct 2018
  6. Apr 2018
    1. The takeaway from the article: Choose document-oriented database only when the data can be treated as a self-contained document

    1. The baseline here is detecting technical issues (counting errors, service availability, etc) but it's also worth monitoring business issues (such as detecting a drop in orders).
  7. Jan 2016
    1. If you ain't talking about the teacher in the classroom, I ain't listening. Teacher quality matters. Too many in the profession are quick to awfulize students in poverty to rationalize poor results. Better teaching inspires students and gets better results. Better teaching engages students and keeps them in classrooms, rather than the streets. Better teaching is the one thing we never really talk about. Better teaching is the only mechanism we have left.

      What are some ways to significantly improve teaching in these communities? The teaching doesn't happen in a vacuum and we need a plan to counteract the systemic forces at work that maintain the status quo.