@Part[plan, Root "introduction.lis"]

@comment[Plan of this dissertation]

My thesis is that electronic communication within an organization
acts as a "co-adaptive system" in which the users both adapt to
and modify the software they use, in a dynamic interaction over time.
This view of software systems has important implications both 
in understanding the influence of technology on organizations
and in the process of designing and developing successful software.

The purpose of this dissertation is to explore co-adaptivity 
as a theoretical framework, using electronic communication 
as an example.

In this dissertation, I review the literature in the following
fields: electronic communication, user innnovation, user interface
design, software development process, adaptive systems, and ...

Define co-adaptive system.  Define an adaptive system first -- example
of a neural net and "database-driven software" and Muse.  Then
describe co-evolution -- example of daisy world.  Then explain what a
co-adaptive system is with respect to interconnected groups of
individuals and collections of software.



The purpose of this dissertation is to:

develop a theoretical framework to describe and understand co-adaptive systems
	define co-adaptive
	identify the characteristics -- what are the qualities of 
		systems of people and software that are likely 
		to make them co-adaptive?
	describe how they might change over time
	propose a process of inquiry to examine them
	what would it take to predict them?

explore electronic communication from the standpoint of co-adaptivity
	describe what it would look like
	present data from email studies
	examine user innovation examples
	describe software design
	present data about changes wrought

Suggest lines of further research

Suggest a new view of software development process

Legitimize a style of field study

Integrate research techniques and feedback into the system.

======

What led to the observation about co-adaptivity?
	Read Gaia.  Knew that users were greatly affected by the 
	underlying assumptions/model of the software they use.
	Got interested in how users innovate.  Put them all together.
	Explains why sw dev proces is inadequate, supports UI 
	process but pushes beyond.  Particularly interested in 
	electronic communication -- one of the reasons why it 
	is so powerful as a co-adaptive system is that use changes
	the use and the change is more rapid than with off-line 
	systems -- (talk to Joanne Yates re: history examples)
	Should change the way we think about delivering information 
	to people and the way we provide communication channels.


Athena solved a number of very hard user interface issues and didn't 
	solve a number of the easy ones.  Multi-tasking over a network,
	ability to attach file systems/environments (teleport me there
	or bring there to me), ability to share, method of handling 
	breakdowns, privacy/security issues.

What's the role of explicitly providing feedback to users? (Zuboff)
	Can help them bring their assumptions about their behavior
	better into line with their actual behavior and allow them 
	to modify their strategies over time

Individual differences
	People need different aspects of the same software. (what percent 
	of all possible unix commands are actually used?)  an adaptive 
	system will evolve 

Co-adaptive systems help to solve a problem of adaptive systems:
	cite  in CHI '89 who says that B is hard:  
	This gives us a chance to let people do what they're good 
	at and computers do what they're good at -- people see the 
	feedback and react accordingly.  Remember though that the 
	form of the feedback will affect the way that users perceive 
	their behavior.

What's the relationship between all this and "situated action"?  The 
	role that operating in the context of one's actual job plays.

How about bringing in Deborah's observations with conversation -- how 
	do the different requirements of converstational patterns 
	manifest themselves and how do the different kinds of tools
	support or inhibit the successful styule of converstaion.

future research
	new forms of research -- re-examine the nature of control
	design implications -- in the products, in the process.


Two areas to examine:  how users adapt to the system and how they 
	make the system adapt to them.  Eric is interested in the 
	latter.  Many user interface folks are interested in the 
	former.  I am interested in the dynamic interaction between 
	the two.


propose design implications -- this requires a change in fundamental 
assumptions about the software development process and ...

propose research implications -- this requires new forms of research 
strategies.  What should they be?

The outline of this dissertation includes:

Introduction -- what is this co-adaptivity business and why is it 
	important.  Plus plan of dissertation.

Literature review  --  who said what

Pilot studies -- what lead me to think that these systems exist

Presentation of the theoretical framework

Evidence for it


=============

The standard model of software development includes a process in which
an "architect" designs a functional specification of the final product
and a team of engineers implements the design.  Testing consists of
checking to see how well the software meets the specified criteria.
Experience has shown (Myth man month) that this is unrealistic, 
particularly if the software being designed will be used by people 
in the course of their work.  In these cases, the interface 


Some software is designed to be adaptive -- in that we feed data 
to it and it changes accordingly.  However, it is not enough 
to say that this software is adaptive.

I am interested in a dynamic view of how people and technologies
work together.


===============

Provide evidence that users are affected by the software they use:
	LISP vs C vs small talk -- the software you use defines the 
		limits of your world.  What's constrained.
	users actively interact with the software they use
	influence of previous text editors  teco, edt, vi, wps  (modes)
	spreadsheets vs financial templates
	pc programmers vs dist. net programmers

Provide evidence that users change the software they use:
	zephyr modifications
	lens rules modifications
	muse modifications
	choice of when to use email

Provide evidence that the process continues.  
	Example of email -- Common Lens -- email -- Argus

Does the process stabilize or keep evolving?  It should depend on 
	the ongoing changes in:  the users, the software, the 
	dynamics between the users and the software.

What about the role of individuals in all this?  Different people use 
	the system in different ways, providing a complex net of 
	usage patterns that affects each other.

Why electronic communication?  Why is it co-adaptive?
	Users are influenced by the technologies made available to them.
	(show changes due to introduction of: FAX, voice mail, 
	zephyr, email)
	Users change the technology (cite interesting changes --
	both by end users and by programmers).  Note the interesting 
	possibilities of studying a person who is an intermediary,
	e.g. Evelyn and Muse, an active interpreter of the system.

Field studies:

	Athena -- look at zephyr modifications.  What have programmers
	done to incorporate new views?  (example of shared backgrounds --
	found a security hole too).  lots of serendipity.

	Look at email use at different places -- especially look at 
	something like All-In-One, which is designed to be flexible,
	but will look different in different organizations.

What other systems are likely to be co-adaptive:

	Ones with users who perform different tasks, that change over 
	time, whose tasks are influenced by the tools provided to them,
	and who have different ways to use the tools.  

	Management information systems
	Distributed educational software
	Financial systems
	Logistics and job tracking systems


Remaining questions:

	Is any of it predictable?
	Is it chaotic?  or will it reach a steady state?
	Is a co-adaptive system better suited to handle change?
	  If yes, how can it be justified?
	Can we measure co-adaptivity?
	  How?
	What are the effects of individual differences?
	

Experiments:

	Given a programmer and a user.  
	Guess that if they have very similar backgrounds and world views
	  they will do very similar things.  If there's no overlap,
	  the user will end up confused and in "survival mode".  If 
	  there's some overlap (especially between a theoretical 
	  push and an applications push), then some interesting 
	  innovations should occur.  Tie this to the reasoning behind
	  my model of the research group.  What kinds of innovations 
	  did they come up with?  What's the control/comparison?


Studying innovations:  the study of rare events (poisson distribution).



==================


Relate to binding constraints in operations research -- through 
	use, the effect of the software changes, because different
	constraints operate.

Is this a chaotic system?  In other words, do small changes create 
	large, unpredictable changes later.  Can we predict when 
	such changes would occur?


====================

Pet topics to incorporate -- where do they fit and why?

1.  Integrated communication system diagram -- with a discussion of
the other possible dimensions. 

2.  Educational "information access" diagram

3.  Editor tutor experiment

4.  Design of the R&D group -- a method for providing comparison, 
	a way of handling the concept of control.

5.  Pygmalion design

6.  EVA design

7.  Video prototyping design

8.  Email study

9.  Lens study

10. Argus design

11. Generalized oz

12. Carrie study:  choices of when to use which comm. channel

13. Anecdotes about user innovations

14. Anecdotes about changing user context

15. Anecdotes about repair theory

16. Anecdotes about email and SIGCHI

Categorize as:

design process
research process
interactivity
role of networks
