visual .net barcode Human Factors in Groups in Software Add QR Code 2d barcode in Software Human Factors in Groups

5.5.3 Human Factors in Groups using none toprint none with web,windows pdf-417 generation Human relationship factor none none s in group interactions must be distinguished from objective performance factors. The signi cance of this distinction was made prominent by Bales experimental studies of group interactions (Bales, 1950, 1951, 1955) and has been used by many subsequent researchers like (Franz, 1999). Bales distinguished between task-related interactions, such as those that address solution correctness and quality, in contrast with interpersonal or social interactions, like social in uence, group cohesion, and group leadership.

This is now called Bales task versus socioemotional distinction. Bales classi ed group interactions into 12 categories, depending on whether the interactions exhibited solidarity, tension release, agreement, disagreement, or antagonism, presented a suggestion, gave an opinion, gave information, asked for information, asked for an opinion, or asked for a suggestion (Short et al., 1976, p.

36). The categories fall into two broad classes corresponding to what can be described. Windows Forms 5 Demographics, Sociology, and Psychology as the task-related, prob none none lem-solving, nonperson-oriented interactions, versus person-oriented interactions that reveal the existence of an attitude between members. Whitworth et al. (2001) introduced an additional group-social component as re ected in expressions of group solidarity or group con dence in a decision, versus an individual-emotional component manifested in expressions of tension or agreement.

Group-social effects have practical implications, for example, individuals who identify with a group tend to accept the group s decisions as their own (Whitworth et al., 1997, p. 1).

Whitworth claimed that such affects do not depend on so-called rich media for their communication, with effective group agreement able to occur through the exchange of relatively simple position information, or choice valence . . .

across distributed lean-text networks (p. 1). As we have seen, the voting mechanisms used in open source developments like Apache are based on exactly such lean communication mechanisms.

Attitudes can be de ned as general, persistent evaluations of a person or issue by another person. They affect how information is processed and have socioemotional as well as objective elements (Fabrigar et al., 1999).

In a wellknown paper, Festinger (1957) conjectured that the way in which people attend to information is congruent with their attitudes and that there is a converse tendency to avoid information which is incongruent with their attitudes (Fabrigar et al., 1999, p. 182), so-called congeniality effects.

He assumed these effects occurred at the exposure, attention, perception, judgment, and memory stages of information processing (p. 182). Later empirical studies supported Festinger s thesis, indicating that people tend to negatively evaluate information which is contrary to their preexisting attitudes.

The attractiveness of a source of information also has an impact on the credibility of the information. While one rationally expects the credibility of a source to be affected by the source s expertise, the attractiveness of the source also plays an important role. Fabrigar also observed that if there is limited opportunity to scrutinize the contents of a message, then the source s attractiveness affects attitudes even if the attractiveness is irrelevant.

In face-to-face exchanges, attractiveness is apparent, but in distributed exchanges it would probably be replaced by generic surrogates for how another individual is perceived, such as their community status in the case of open source. Groups do not necessarily mitigate behavior. In fact, in ammatory behavior may be more common in group contexts than for individuals.

It has long been contended that computer-mediated groups tend to exhibit more uninhibited behavior using strong and in ammatory expressions in interpersonal interactions (Siegel et al., 1986, p. 157).

Sproul and Kiesler (1986) attributed the tendency toward more extreme, more impulsive, and less socially differentiated . 5.5 Social Psychology and Open Source (p. 1496) behavior than i none none n a face-to-face context, as due to the lack of adequate social context cues in information-poor media. The use of uninhibited or angry communications in computer-supported communications is called aming.

The pervasive acronym RTFM (Read The F ing Manual) used in computing-related development forums in general, not just for open source, is symptomatic. Normal people would not routinely express themselves this way in face-to-face conversation unless the speaker was arrogant or boorish. Furthermore, interactions in open source groups are also by de nition both completely and permanently public, with con icts exposed not only to the immediate participants, but to anyone who has access to the mailing list, including the media, and to posterity via the archives.

In general, con ict in group interactions may be either detached or emotional, either type requiring negotiation for resolution. Interpersonal con ict between the members of a collaborative group differs from domain level con ict, the latter referring to differences regarding technicalities like implementation or design criteria. Con icts between parties may also be differentiated according to whether they are con icts of interest or con icts of viewpoints.

Con icts of interest lead to so-called hard (win lose) negotiations, while con icts of viewpoint lead to soft (win win) negotiations characteristic of friendly, cooperating parties. Both situations bene t from the use of structured negotiation processes. The argument between Linus Torvalds and Andrew Tanenbaum is a classic example of an important technical design con ict that precipitated interpersonal and domain-level con ict.

We previously alluded to this classic incident in our discussion of Linux kernel design. Minix designer Tanenbaum had sarcastically characterized the Linux architecture as obsolete in a famed newsgroup post (see DiBona et al. (1999) for the e-mails).

Torvalds responded heatedly within hours with his own e-mail post to the newsgroup. His response included in ammatory remarks like your job is being a professor and researcher: That s one hell of a good excuse for some of the brain-damages of minix. I can only hope (and assume) that Amoeba doesn t suck like minix does (response dated: 29 Jan 92 23:14:26 GMT).

Amoeba was another operating system project Tanenbaum was working on. The debate lasted quite a while but eventually the tone settled down to a more measured, technological one. The entire exchange was instructive, concerning how open source development works.

As Weber (2004, p. 102) observes of the open development process, in general discussions get down to technical issues, clarifying the trade-offs among design strategies and decisions that matter for the function and performance of software. Tanenbaum s provocation had the positive effect of compelling Torvalds to more explicitly understand and more clearly and effectively articulate his own design rationale than he had done to that point.

Ultimately, as Weber (2004, p. 102) observes,.
Copyright © . All rights reserved.