A fairly popular software company founded on the principle of simplicity is 37 Signals. I've been a user of several of their products, most notably "backpackit" and "basecamp" for about a year and a half. I've given some thought over that time to how their tools are used to collaborate, and how different theoretical frameworks might help to explain why project path is an effective tool.
The tools that 37 Signals build are highly simplified ways of organizing individual tasks, in the case of backpackit, and managing the communication overhead associated with projects, as in the case of basecamp. Backpackit gives you "to do lists", "milestones" and "notespages"... just about everything one could wish for in order to manage lists of the things they need to do. Basecamp gives you a shared message board, to do lists that you can assign tasks to team members with, whiteboards and lots of file upload space.
These tools just work. The goal of this post is to take a phenomenological, instead of classically critical approach to understanding why, in the context of a dominant HCI theory - activity theory. So, this isn't about problems, its about what works and some theoretical framing of why they work.
Activity theory is a useful framework for understanding why basecamp works as a product. Activity theory (Vygotsky, Leontiv, Engstrom) is useful for understanding collaborative computing systems like Basecamp because it addresses the activity as a unit of analysis. Activity as the unit of analysis - What does that mean? If you think about this, and compare it with the alternatives of a social group or an individual being the unit of analysis, it is intuitive (to me) why a theory that focuses on the dynamic activity humans engage in would be so appealing for understanding a (collaborative) tool like this. The activity consists of:
- Subject (the person)
- Object (the thing the person or people are working on)
- Actions (things we do to act on the object)
- Artifacts (representations of the object)
You can see from this shot that there are a number of specific "objects" that are represented in these lists. The lists themselves are "artifacts" in activity theory parlance. All that means is that "the reminder item to setup the performance test" is distinct from the actual performance test. The artifact is a representation, in essance, of the object.
What is significant here is that subjects (people like you, me and our team mates, work mates or other mates) act directly on both the objects and the artifacts, and we are aware of each others actions instantly.
Instantly.
So, the coordination work that needs to take place when people work together is backgrounded by the creation of a shared space for communicating about artifacts that represent objects. Simply checking one of the items (artifacts) off on the to-do list notifies all concerned that you have satisfied the requirements of the object itself. In the Basecamp arrangement, this is eloquent and simple.
To satisfy the object requirement - lets use our performance test setup example again - you ought to have actually setup the performance testing plan and environment, which is represented by the associated artifact item in Basecamp. Users are, then, interacting with both objects and artifacts.
What makes Basecamp special?
Well, here's where activity theory comes in... Let's say you are responsible for getting a project done at work. Those of us who haven't latched onto a Paris-Hilton-esque gravy train with biscuit wheels can probably relate to this. Would you rather spend your time manipulating objects, or manipulating artifacts that represent objects? In other words, is your time better spent doing stuff or making lists about doing stuff? To the extent that you are actually working on the objects (in this case, the actual work represented by the items on your project to-do list) themselves, you are, in fact, "doing something". To the extent that your life is engrossed in the manipulation of artifacts you are "The guy who takes the requirements from the customers to the engineers (see IMDB Reference for "Office Space"). To the extent you are doing something, you are probably more likely to have a job.
My personal bias is toward "doing something". For projects up to a certain size and complexity, Basecamp is an excellent tool for "doing something". Meaning this: You won't need to spend time thinking about "how do I communicate that this work is done to the rest of my team?" or "how do I communicate the importance of a particular task to my team?" You don't have to think about these things because the user experience offered by these tools makes attending to the catalouging of work and the communication of progress intuitive & seemless. Subject, and object are seemlessly represented by artifacts whose state can be intuitively changed to reflect actions of the subjects on the objects. As they say in those Guiness commercials - BRILLIANT!
Key References
Nardi, Bonnie, Context and Consciousness
Kaptelinin, Victor & Nardi, Bonnie, Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design
0 comments:
Post a Comment