The background: PD and CSCW
Professor of Programming
Languages at the Computer Science Dept. of the Milano State University, in the
'80 I was engaged in two main threads of research.
On the one hand, my concern was about languages and methods for concurrent systems
design and implementation: in this area. I devoted special attention to two
(families of) languages which share the feature of being particularly effective,
in the range of not skilled people too: they are Petri nets and object-oriented
languages.
On the other hand, I paied attention to the impacts of computerization on people
work and life. The approach was not limited to the study of organizational theories
supporting IT introduction, but directly engaged in educating workers and in
supporting Trade Unions, to allow them to be actors of the change (cf.
(De Cindio et al, 1983), (Nygaard, 1983)). A special attention (De Cindio and
Simone, 1983), (De Cindio and Simone, 198?) was toward developing a gender perspective,
stressing that women should exploit their diversity (in a very broad sense,
including the approach to technology) in positive terms. In this context, realizing
quite in advance that the applications developed in the EDP and IMS age cover
just the repetitive part of the work, and recognizing the role that communication
technologies would have plaied to overcome this limit, together with some collegues,
we developed a prototype of a tool supporting conversations, influenced by (Winograd
and Flores, 1985), (Petri,1977) and presented at the First CSCW conference (De
Cindio et al, 1986).
The experience
I have shortly presented this background since it plays a role in the starting and in the development of the Milano Community Network (RCM, Rete Civica di Milano), and, more in general, in the activities of the Civic Networking Lab at the Computer Science Dept. of the Milano State Univ.
A presentation of RCM is out of the scope of this position paper. It is included in (Casapulla et al, 1998). Here I want to stress a couple of issues, some of which are related to those listed in the workshop invitation.
The issues
1) Participatory design
borns as system designers realize the need of involving users in the development
of (hopefully usable and succesful) CB systems. User participation is not an
easy task in the age of EDP/IMS applications, but it is even more difficult
when computer mediated communication is considered, i.e., when computerization
overcomes the borders of a single organization. Community networks simply
cannot be conceived and designed without citizen participation, so they become
useful experiences to learn how participatory design is possible in the "new"
field of the communication technologies. In (Casapulla et al, 1998) we have
summarized our experience and some good consequences over the design of
public on-line services.
2) Groupware systems have been widely deployed in and exploited by large organizations, while, in a country like Italy, the economy largely relies upon small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and, more and more, upon the so called "third sector" (volunteers initiatives which take in charge public services). To introduce groupware applications into these smaller and less structured organizations requires specific policies. A different, but somehow related problem, concerns the Public dministration sector. According to our experience, the process of introduction of groupware into SMEs and Public Institutions can be speed up when citizens have a chance to access a community network which makes them familiar with basis groupware functionalities. Moreover, also the scientific basis for groupware, i.e., CSCW disciplines, can get fruitful inputs from the experiences done developing and managing community networks (CNs), so enlarging their range of attention from the traditional corporate-based framework to open communities. Such an "extension" has already been suggested in (Schuler, 1997).
Notice that, in both the above cases, initially the CN profits of the know-how from PD and CSCW fields, but then gives back the service by providing them with new experiences, stimula and insights. More in general, CNs provide help and suggestions to avoid the risk of reducing the (Inter)net to a new broadcasting medium: both for designing effective applications (web sites) with the existing networking technologies and for designing new tools to overcome the limits of the present web-based solutions.
3) CNs starts as initiatives
located "around a town", but our experience confirm that they give their best
in larger areas. Milano is not just a town but a metropolis, and the kind of
services that net citizens appreciate more are strongly related to the problems
and needs typical of a metropolis, including reducing distances and reducing
the lack of smooth social relatioships. Other experiences in Lombardia, the
region where Milano is located, confirm this claim.
Moreover, in more than a couple of cases in Italy and Europe, we got the perception
that, while the CN is seen as a competitor by the Municipality, it is appreciated
and supported by the regional authority, as it enhances cooperation and service
distribution over the regional area. This observation might be important for
defining survival policies for CNs.
4) The proliferation of
terms for denoting (different kind of) networking initiaves centered aroud a
town, or a geographic area, generates confusion: community networks, civic networks,
city nets, city web, digital cities, telecities, are just some of the acronyms:
the last one I red is "municipal civic network".
In Italy (and probably elsewhere) this confusion is partly due to the
variety of the actor(s) who are promoter(s): usually the initiative comes
from the Civic Administration, but different Municipalities use the same term
for projects with different goals and approaches. In some case a major role
is played by the University (Milano), sometimes by citizens themeselves organized
as no profit Association (San Donato, Bergamo) or even in small private companies
(Como). "Comunità", for community, cannot be used as, in
italian, its meaning is overloaded by the Catholic Church tradition, while "civico"
comes from the latin civitas which stands both for the citizen
community itself and for the Institution (the Municipality) which represents
them. Therefore, "Rete (for network) Civica" is the most popular term.
However there are plenty of "rete civica" that are just web sites which broadcast
information without any two-way communication and conceive citizens as
mere readers/users.
So I believe that the first (in priority) theoretical need is to update the
characterization of "community networks" given in (Schuler, 1993), (Schuler,
1996), in such a way that the new one is useful to distinguish these different
initiaves and approaches, while encouraging their evolution toward citizens
participation. It should also guide membership to the various CNs organizations
(in the US, Canada, Europe, etc) and their mutual relationships.
Our contribution to this effort is the following.
A CNs cannot be conceived without a relevant participation of citizens. Participation
means not only be active on the (local) net, but also have a chance of contributing
to its development (citizens as designers and developers). Where a network of
local and free Bbs (pre)exists, an effort should be made to involve these network
communities into the CN. This identifies a first "dimension" of a CN:
I will call it the "free net" dimension.
A CNs cannot disregard the Public Administrations. As it aims at reducing the
distances between citizens and public officiers/administrators, it must make
available different on-line services provided by the PAs, including: (a)
information services (such as news, acts, etc); (b) interactive
services (such as certifications, registrations, payments, etc); (c) less structured
services, to enhance free dialogue about ongoing decisions and participation
on general policies. This identifies a second "dimension".
The third dimension concerns "the market". If I'm right, it was somehow excluded
by the first free nets. However, in our experience, we do need to realize that
citizens, especially the younger ones, live in the net with their multiple identities,
included the fact that they use the CN to work (e.g., costituting kinds of virtual
cooperatives) and to promote their professional skill: in RCM people find work,
or improve it, because of what they do on-line. Moreover, local commercial
businesses see the CN as a partner to face with the powerful big (multi)national
chains. And, finally, SMEs which have reduced resources and skills, see
in the CN a center of innovation which can support them to understand the technology
evolution (e.g., for introducing communication and groupware technologies).
We do believe that a CN
have to include all these three dimensions. Even more, we believe that the survival
itself of a CN depends on a harmonious ed well-balanced development of the three
dimensions.
As CN are not static, but change over time, the evolution of each CN describes
a line in the space the three dimensions draw. For instance, RCM initially lain
in the free net dimension. Then we worked to include services provided by the
major local Institutions. Now, after a few experiences, RCM is undertaking
a more systematic effort to offer commercial services.
5) Finally, we need to reason
about analogies and differences bewteen different kinds of virtual communities,
namely community networks and network communities (Vicky and al, 1998): sharing
problems and needs, technologies and social policies, toward a crossfertilization,
would be more fruitful then considering them are independent fields of investigation.
References
(Casapulla et al, 1998). G. Casapulla et al, A Citizen-driven Civic Network as Stimulating Context for Designing On-line Public Services, Proc. PDC'98, Seattle, nov. 1998
(De Cindio et al, 1983) F. De Cindio et al, Conditions and Tools for an Effective Negotiation during the organization/information Design Process. In: Briefs et al (eds.), Systems Design for, with and by the Users, North-Holland, 1983.
(Nygaard, 1983) K. Nygaard, Participation in System Development, The Task Ahead. In: Briefs et al (eds.), Systems Design for, with and by the Users, North-Holland, 1983.
(De Cindio and Simone, 1985) F. De Cindio and C. Simone, Women and Work in the Age of Computers: (Many Problems) One Opportunities and Two Challanges. In: A. Olerup and al. (eds.), Women, Work and Computerization: Opportunities and Disadvantages, North-Holland, 1985.
(De Cindio and Simone, 1989) F. De Cindio and C. Simone, A Framework for Understanding (Women's) Work and its Computerization. In: K. Tijdens and al (eds.) Women, Work and Computerization: Forming New Alliances, Elsevier Science Publisher, 1989.
(De Cindio et al, 1986) F. De Cindio and al, CHAOS as a Coordination Technology, Proc. CSCW'86, Austin (Texas), 1986.
(Petri, 1977) C.A. Petri, Comunication Disciplines. In: B. Shaw (ed.), Proc. of the Joint IBM-Univ. of Newcastle upon Tyne Seminar, Newcastle upon Tyne Computing Lab., 1977.
(Schuler, 1993) D. Schuler, Community Networks: Building a New Participatory Medium, CACM, vol. 37, n. 1, 1994.
(Schuler, 1996) D. Schuler, New Coomunity Networks - Wired for Change, Addison-Wesley, 1996.
(Schuler, 1997) D. Schuler,
Community Computer Network: An Opportunity for Collaboration among
Democratic Technology Practitioners and Researchers. In: Proc. of "Tecnology
and Democracy: Comparative Perspectives", Oslo
(Norvay), 1997.
(Winograd and Flores, 1985)
T. Winograd and F. Flores, Understanding Computers and Cognition,
Ablex, 1985.