Topic: electronic meetings

systems > Group: coordination system

coordination system
digital communication
electronic mail
broadcasting information
discussion groups, mail conversations, and teleconferencing
examples of coordination systems
problem solving
shared information for collaborative work
task communication
using hypertext for cooperative work
voice and sound as a user interface

topics a-e


Meetings are an important part of most businesses. They are expensive, particularly if participants travel to the meeting.

Electronic support allows remote attendence, monitored participation, and recorded discussions and decisions.

The war room or command center is a room designed to facilitate decision making. A wall display presents relevant information. Participants may be connected with voice loops

Publish and subscribe automatically distributes information to interested parties. Presence systems keep track of participants location and status. Electronic voting and collaboration systems assist with reaching consensus. (cbb 3/07)

Subtopic: distributed meeting up

Quote: problems with distributed meetings -- poor audio quality, misunderstandings, could not identify speaker [yankN11_2004]
Quote: most distributed meetings involved a conference room and additional participants in dispersed locations [yankN11_2004]
Quote: Meeting Central facilitates distributed meetings by showing who is present, who is speaking, who wants to speak, huh?/yea!, simple voting, too loud/soft, mute, and whisper [yankN11_2004]

Subtopic: software review up

Quote: Scrub combines static analyzers, background checkers, and human-generated peer code review comments; the module owner must reply to every report; one face-to-face meeting per module code review [holzGJ2_2014]
Quote: 10,000 peer comments and 30,000 tool-generated reports in Scrub for the Mars mission; 85% led to changes in the code; only 6% needed discussion; 33% of disagree comments overruled [holzGJ2_2014]

Subtopic: asynchronous meeting up

Quote: asynchronous reviews are as good as collocated meetings; they encourage team discussions and passive listeners; they allow frequent, incremental reviews by experts; need lightweight review tools [rigbPC11_2012]

Subtopic: war room up

Quote: use war room for highly interdependent, dynamic teams; everyone monitors information both visually and aurally [markG6_2002]

Subtopic: face-to-face meetings up

Quote: Colab for small, face-to-face meetings; improve effectiveness and study effect of computer tools [stefM1_1987]
Quote: simultaneous, real-time interaction needed for tasks such as crisis handling [sariS10_1985]
Quote: Colab helps with meetings which are the way most organizations work [stefM1_1987]

Subtopic: collaboration up

Quote: control of meetings is socially mediated; any user can start presenting; do not use states and roles [yankN11_2004]

Subtopic: presence up

Quote: distributed groupware must describe the social world, i.e., who is on the system and what they are doing [ackeMS6_1996]

Subtopic: publish-subscribe up

Quote: use electronic meeting room and publish-subscribe spreadsheets for collaborative, space mission proposals; good predictions [markG6_2002]

Subtopic: brainstorming up

Quote: Cognoter in Colab for preparing a presentation outline; determining content and organization [stefM1_1987]
Quote: during brainstorming in Cognoter, users write catchwords and supporting text; may move items but can't delete them [stefM1_1987]
Quote: during ordering phase of Cognoter, verbal interaction followed by individual assignments; eventually lose track of other's progress [stefM1_1987]
Quote: third phase of Cognoter used to finish the presentation; review, reorganize, eliminate [stefM1_1987]
Quote: phases of an Argnoter meeting in Colab: proposing, arguing, evaluating [stefM1_1987]
Quote: disputes about design proposals from owned positions, unstated assumptions, unstated criteria; Argnoter clarifies these [stefM1_1987]

Subtopic: electronic voting up

Quote: non-experts cannot verify Internet voting results; any voter can understand paper ballots [olseKA8_2012]
Quote: EIES provides nine different Delphi-like voting scales; efficient discovery of consensus [hiltSR7_1985]
Quote: remote electronic voting does not work for public elections; too many insecure facilities/programs and too little scrutiny [rubiAD12_2002]

Subtopic: collaborative editing up

Quote: undo a group edit by transposing the inverse operation to the original location in the history buffer [sunC12_2000]

Subtopic: examples up

Quote: COM is a computer-assisted teleconferencing system [palmJ9_1979]
Quote: implement a liveboard with multiple PDAs controlling a PC's keyboard and mouse [myerBA11_1998]
Quote: Meeting Central is a prototype suite of collaboration tools for distributed meetings; minimalist, scalable design [yankN11_2004]
Quote: survey of distributed meeting effectiveness; validated against trouble tickets [yankN11_2004]

Subtopic: too much detail up

Quote: electronic schedules had too much detail; difficult general overview; e.g., 1200 tasks for 19 project members, 25 pages printed [whitS_1999]

Subtopic: meetings not helpful up

Quote: meetingless inspections finds more defects than those with meetings [portA11_1997]

Related up

Group: digital communication
Group: electronic mail
Group: organizations
Topic: broadcasting information
Topic: discussion groups, mail conversations, and teleconferencing
Topic: examples of coordination systems
Topic: problem solving
Topic: shared information for collaborative work
Topic: task communication
Topic: using hypertext for cooperative work
Topic: voice and sound as a user interface

Subtopics up

asynchronous meeting
collaborative editing
distributed meeting
electronic voting
face-to-face meetings
meetings not helpful
software review
too much detail
war room

Updated barberCB 2/06
Copyright © 2002-2023 by C.B. Barber
Thesa, Avev, and thid-... are trademarks of C.B. Barber