Tech in Teams March 1

• make-public

• Introduction

  • From the earliest days of computing, humans have been fascinated by the affordances of computers. The ability of computers to instantly compute calculations that would take humans days or weeks was instrumental in war efforts, and their ability to autonomously carry out increasingly complex sets of instructions echoed dreams of computers that were genuinely intelligent. Yet, while visions of a future rich in computing generally see computers and humans as teammates working together and building upon each other's capabilities, the conceptualizing in the psychological literature of how this process should unfold has been limited and scattered. *

    • There are opportunities - efUzMmXy6
    • Technology use will only increase with time, and we can influence how these technologies are built if we can articulate what we need from them.
    Technology use will only increase with time, and we can influence how these technologies are built if we can articulate what we need from them.
  • Much of the discussion of technology published in psychological journals to date has centered around the idea of communication richness, the extent to which technology allows for rich virtual means of communication such that parties can communicate in real-time [e.g., @Kirkman.Mathieu2005]. Such a focus details how communication in teams is richer for its ability to bridge distances and space, but is necessarily generic in looking at communication broadly rather than a close examination of the processes through which teams are given leverage by complex technologies. Others have examined how to understand cognition when it merges both the human mind and the technological scaffolds it can build on [@Fiore.Wiltshire2016], integrating broad theoretical perspectives and breaking ground upon which this paper seeks to build.

    • Yet, even these efforts together do not fully describe the pathways by which technology can aid teams in their work, nor do they consider how technology interplays with existing taxonomies of team processes.
      • Efforts to try other wordings:
        • There is need for a framework to delineate the dimensions of present and future technologies these pathways or dimensions, and to consider how they interplay with existing taxonomies of team processes.
          • to delineate a framework of technologies, articulating the different pathways through which technology complements the work of teams, and to consider how these dimensions interplay with existing taxonomies of team processes.
        • There is need for a framework which delineates the pathways or dimensions by which technology aids teams in their work, and considers how these dimensions interplay with existing taxonomies of team processes.
          • "interplay" - there's room here for a colorful word, something that connotes dancing synergistically
        • Yet, even the integration of these efforts does not fully describe the pathways by which technology can aid teams in their work.
          • There is need for a framework that delineates the ways technology complements human teams, and considers how
          • There is need for a framework that delineates these pathways, and considers how they interplay with existing taxonomies of team processes.
    Yet, even these efforts together do not fully describe the pathways by which technology can aid teams in their work, nor do they consider how technology interplays with existing taxonomies of team processes.

    • Efforts to try other wordings:
      • There is need for a framework to delineate the dimensions of present and future technologies these pathways or dimensions, and to consider how they interplay with existing taxonomies of team processes.
        • to delineate a framework of technologies, articulating the different pathways through which technology complements the work of teams, and to consider how these dimensions interplay with existing taxonomies of team processes.
      • There is need for a framework which delineates the pathways or dimensions by which technology aids teams in their work, and considers how these dimensions interplay with existing taxonomies of team processes.
        • "interplay" - there's room here for a colorful word, something that connotes dancing synergistically
      • Yet, even the integration of these efforts does not fully describe the pathways by which technology can aid teams in their work.
        • There is need for a framework that delineates the ways technology complements human teams, and considers how
        • There is need for a framework that delineates these pathways, and considers how they interplay with existing taxonomies of team processes.
  • In another arena, the computer science and related literatures have long understood that there are various ways in which computers can help us, with distinct research streams taking different foci (CITE). However, these other literatures do not give due consideration to the specific processes by which teams operate, consideration which has received extensive attention in the literature on teams [e.g., @Fleishman.Zaccaro1992; @Grossman.Friedman.ea2017TeamworkProcessesEmergent; @Ilgen.Hollenbeck.ea2005; @Marks.Mathieu.ea2001TeamProcesses; @Mathieu.Maynard.ea2008; @Prince.Salas1993].

    • ~~ This paper will draw heavily on these efforts in articulating how technology can aid in teamwork processes specifically.~~
  • The goal of this paper is twofold. First, it aims to present a taxonomy of the elements present in technology, articulating the distinct mediums through which technology can be complement the work of teams. Second, this paper will utilize reviews of team processes to examine how mediums of technology introduce affordances and challenges for each team process.
    The outcome of these efforts will be a framework that can guide future efforts with a more complete perspective on how to consider integrating technology into a future where machines and humans work synergistically. This framework will also present those working with a computer science perspective an understanding of the processes of human teamwork, and a consideration of how technology can complement or interfere with those processes; as well as identifying some promising next steps where future development of technology can be particularly helpful. *

• A framework of team technologies

  • [Need a good transition paragraph to introduce this section.]

  • Communication Richness

    • Graham Bell's telephone and David Alter's telegraph bridged distances, sending our voices and words across the miles and the continents. These new mediums for communication allowed us to talk to more people, more distant people, than ever before. It was not long before we dreamed of talking with video connections, and of holographic images projected into reality. The first of these dreams is already reality, and the second is sure to follow soon. This use of technology lets us send our words to each other, and the continuum of how realistic these communications are, how closely they approximate the experience of talking to someone face-to-face, is a measure of communication richness [@Kirkman.Mathieu2005].

      • Communication richness reflects the dimension of how technology facilitates communication between human actors, and contains two subdimensions. The first element is the virtuality of the communication, and has been the focus of research to date. We suggest a second subdimension to allow for additional mediums of communication.
        • The virtuality of communication reflects how faithfully technology reproduces the experience of talking with other people. On the low end of this dimension, communication is purely textual. Where all communication already requires that we spend effort encoding our thoughts into words (CITE), purely textual communication strips any non-verbal communication abilities and requires that we write out our words.
        • Higher levels of communication virtuality incorporate non-verbal communication elements, mimicking the realism of in-person communication. Whether through the use of audio calls, or video calls, or a realistic video call that places the other in a three-dimensional form in our very presence through the use of augmented reality or holographic image, high levels of virtuality allow for non-verbal communication elements such as vocal tone, facial expression, and body movements.
          • Assuredly, there is some clarity that often comes with writing out our thoughts in textual form for others to read. However, that is a result of a process similar to the one at play when handwritten notes result in a clearer understanding and retention of material than when notes are typed: the extra encoding steps require additional steps that clarify our understanding. The medium of text itself is still a more bare medium than verbalized communication.
      • Communication richness cannot be wholly captured by the virtuality of the medium. There is a second spect of communication richness that has not received attention in the literature: medium for communication, or the incorporation of additional methods or mediums for us to transfer our thoughts to others.
        • Mediums for communication explore how communication goes beyond words and gestures, which are what we use when we have no tools but our voices and bodies. Communication is the process of encoding our thoughts into a medium that others work to decode, ascertaining meaning in their own minds (CITE). This process can utilize other tools.
          • trying different things:
          • Communication is not only about words and gestures...
          • In an analogue format, these can include napkin diagrams during dinner meetings, whiteboard use in a classroom, or visual diagramming during a conference talk...
          • For example, in a classroom or over dinner, we might grab a whiteboard or napkin and sketch out a diagram; not as something to be given over separately from our words, but to be used as a complement to our words, punctuating points on a diagram with explanations. These...
          • For example, in a classroom or over dinner, we might grab a whiteboard or napkin and sketch out a diagram. In a design meeting, we might utilize props or moldable mediums to construct physical aids to accompany our words. These tools are part of the communication process, used as complements to our words, where points of explanation are punctuated with visual or kinesthetic or other experiential elements to aid in encoding our thoughts more clearly.
          • For example, in a classroom or over dinner, we might grab a whiteboard or napkin and sketch out a diagram. In a design meeting, we might utilize props or moldable mediums to construct physical aids to accompany our words. These tools are part of the communication process, used as complements to our words, where points of explanation are punctuated with visual or kinesthetic or other experiential elements to aid in encoding our thoughts more clearly.
          • Mediums for communication can be analogue, or they can be part of the digital technologies we use to communicate. Including a diagram in an email is adding a visual element to our words; even more communicative is using mediums in a compilational manner, using verbal and non-verbal communication together with additional tools, whether by sending a video accompanying the building of a diagram with an explanation, interfacing with colleagues over a large interactive display [e.g., @Mateescu.Pimmer.ea2019], or participating in a live holographic conference call where digital three-dimensional diagrams or physical props can be conjured and manipulated at will.
            • think this is too long an explanation - especially if also want to include, as part of mediums of communication, the inclusion of the context behind our thoughts, and the possibility of _removing_ rather than adding to the encoding process, like sending the direct artifacts of our thinking. Can work to shorten from after "including a diagram in an email..."
        • Mediums for communication are not limited to two and three dimensional diagrams. The ability to include the context that gave birth to our ideas, technological affordances that allow us to send simple messages that are accompanied by access to a knowledge graph of the sources that underly ones thinking, would allow others to explore more deeply any elements in our words that were unclear, or where subject matter familiarity was falsely assumed.
          • Included, too, are methods where the encoding process is skipped entirely, where one does not consider how to put thoughts into words meant purely for communication, but shares the artifacts of their thinking directly. Live synchronous document editing is such a medium, where collaborators working together might not explain their thinking directly, but allow others to see the artifacts of their thinking directly - the writing, deleting, and restructuring that are all part of the process. Of course, skipping the encoding process does not mean that our thoughts are effectively visible, nor that the receiver does not still have to go through the decoding process. But this method of communication is one afforded by digital technologies, and not captured in examining the virtuality of communication alone.
            • Left this out of the version in Tech in Teams March 1
      • Of course, the challenges of face-to-face communication apply to digital communication as well: while we encode our thoughts into words, and try to include any context necessary for understanding, the receiver must go through a process of decoding whereby they hear those words through the lenses of their own experiences, knowledge, and biases.
      • place for this is not here - but had the thought and wanted to get it downWhen we use live synchronous documents to work together, we skip the encoding process where we must consider how to put our thoughts into words meant purely for communication. Others may look directly at the artifact of our thinking. Of course, skipping the encoding process does not always mean that our thoughts are effectively visible, nor that the receiver does not still have to go through the decoding process.
      • Diagramming, drawing pictures or representations for others, are often more effective ways of encoding meaning, particularly when paired with written or spoken words.
      • The common element in all of communication richness is the existence of the thought in the mind of one individual, where the richness of communication affords mediums for the process of conveying that thought to others. There is place for technology to help formulate the thoughts in the first place, but such leverages will be discussed later.
    • Communication richness reflects the dimension of how technology facilitates communication between human actors, and contains two subdimensions. The first element is the virtuality of the communication, and has been the focus of research to date. We suggest a second subdimension to allow for additional mediums of communication.

      • The virtuality of communication reflects how faithfully technology reproduces the experience of talking with other people. On the low end of this dimension, communication is purely textual. Where all communication already requires that we spend effort encoding our thoughts into words (CITE), purely textual communication strips any non-verbal communication abilities and requires that we write out our words.
      • Higher levels of communication virtuality incorporate non-verbal communication elements, mimicking the realism of in-person communication. Whether through the use of audio calls, or video calls, or a realistic video call that places the other in a three-dimensional form in our very presence through the use of augmented reality or holographic image, high levels of virtuality allow for non-verbal communication elements such as vocal tone, facial expression, and body movements.
        • Assuredly, there is some clarity that often comes with writing out our thoughts in textual form for others to read. However, that is a result of a process similar to the one at play when handwritten notes result in a clearer understanding and retention of material than when notes are typed: the extra encoding steps require additional steps that clarify our understanding. The medium of text itself is still a more bare medium than verbalized communication.
    • The virtuality of communication reflects how faithfully technology reproduces the experience of talking with other people. On the low end of this dimension, communication is purely textual. Where all communication already requires that we spend effort encoding our thoughts into words (CITE), purely textual communication strips any non-verbal communication abilities and requires that we write out our words.
      Higher levels of communication virtuality incorporate non-verbal communication elements, mimicking the realism of in-person communication. Whether through the use of audio calls, or video calls, or a realistic video call that places the other in a three-dimensional form in our very presence through the use of augmented reality or holographic image, high levels of virtuality allow for non-verbal communication elements such as vocal tone, facial expression, and body movements.

      • Assuredly, there is some clarity that often comes with writing out our thoughts in textual form for others to read. However, that is a result of a process similar to the one at play when handwritten notes result in a clearer understanding and retention of material than when notes are typed: the extra encoding steps require additional steps that clarify our understanding. The medium of text itself is still a more bare medium than verbalized communication.
    • Assuredly, there is some clarity that often comes with writing out our thoughts in textual form for others to read. However, that is a result of a process similar to the one at play when handwritten notes result in a clearer understanding and retention of material than when notes are typed: the extra encoding steps require additional steps that clarify our understanding. The medium of text itself is still a more bare medium than verbalized communication.
    • Communication richness cannot be wholly captured by the virtuality of the medium. There is a second spect of communication richness that has not received attention in the literature: medium for communication, or the incorporation of additional methods or mediums for us to transfer our thoughts to others.

      • Mediums for communication explore how communication goes beyond words and gestures, which are what we use when we have no tools but our voices and bodies. Communication is the process of encoding our thoughts into a medium that others work to decode, ascertaining meaning in their own minds (CITE). This process can utilize other tools.
        • trying different things:
        • Communication is not only about words and gestures...
        • In an analogue format, these can include napkin diagrams during dinner meetings, whiteboard use in a classroom, or visual diagramming during a conference talk...
        • For example, in a classroom or over dinner, we might grab a whiteboard or napkin and sketch out a diagram; not as something to be given over separately from our words, but to be used as a complement to our words, punctuating points on a diagram with explanations. These...
        • For example, in a classroom or over dinner, we might grab a whiteboard or napkin and sketch out a diagram. In a design meeting, we might utilize props or moldable mediums to construct physical aids to accompany our words. These tools are part of the communication process, used as complements to our words, where points of explanation are punctuated with visual or kinesthetic or other experiential elements to aid in encoding our thoughts more clearly.
        • For example, in a classroom or over dinner, we might grab a whiteboard or napkin and sketch out a diagram. In a design meeting, we might utilize props or moldable mediums to construct physical aids to accompany our words. These tools are part of the communication process, used as complements to our words, where points of explanation are punctuated with visual or kinesthetic or other experiential elements to aid in encoding our thoughts more clearly.
        • Mediums for communication can be analogue, or they can be part of the digital technologies we use to communicate. Including a diagram in an email is adding a visual element to our words; even more communicative is using mediums in a compilational manner, using verbal and non-verbal communication together with additional tools, whether by sending a video accompanying the building of a diagram with an explanation, interfacing with colleagues over a large interactive display [e.g., @Mateescu.Pimmer.ea2019], or participating in a live holographic conference call where digital three-dimensional diagrams or physical props can be conjured and manipulated at will.
          • think this is too long an explanation - especially if also want to include, as part of mediums of communication, the inclusion of the context behind our thoughts, and the possibility of _removing_ rather than adding to the encoding process, like sending the direct artifacts of our thinking. Can work to shorten from after "including a diagram in an email..."
      • Mediums for communication are not limited to two and three dimensional diagrams. The ability to include the context that gave birth to our ideas, technological affordances that allow us to send simple messages that are accompanied by access to a knowledge graph of the sources that underly ones thinking, would allow others to explore more deeply any elements in our words that were unclear, or where subject matter familiarity was falsely assumed.
        • Included, too, are methods where the encoding process is skipped entirely, where one does not consider how to put thoughts into words meant purely for communication, but shares the artifacts of their thinking directly. Live synchronous document editing is such a medium, where collaborators working together might not explain their thinking directly, but allow others to see the artifacts of their thinking directly - the writing, deleting, and restructuring that are all part of the process. Of course, skipping the encoding process does not mean that our thoughts are effectively visible, nor that the receiver does not still have to go through the decoding process. But this method of communication is one afforded by digital technologies, and not captured in examining the virtuality of communication alone.
          • Left this out of the version in Tech in Teams March 1
    • Mediums for communication explore how communication goes beyond words and gestures, which are what we use when we have no tools but our voices and bodies. Communication is the process of encoding our thoughts into a medium that others work to decode, ascertaining meaning in their own minds (CITE). This process can utilize other tools.

      • trying different things:
      • Communication is not only about words and gestures...
      • In an analogue format, these can include napkin diagrams during dinner meetings, whiteboard use in a classroom, or visual diagramming during a conference talk...
      • For example, in a classroom or over dinner, we might grab a whiteboard or napkin and sketch out a diagram; not as something to be given over separately from our words, but to be used as a complement to our words, punctuating points on a diagram with explanations. These...
      • For example, in a classroom or over dinner, we might grab a whiteboard or napkin and sketch out a diagram. In a design meeting, we might utilize props or moldable mediums to construct physical aids to accompany our words. These tools are part of the communication process, used as complements to our words, where points of explanation are punctuated with visual or kinesthetic or other experiential elements to aid in encoding our thoughts more clearly.
      • For example, in a classroom or over dinner, we might grab a whiteboard or napkin and sketch out a diagram. In a design meeting, we might utilize props or moldable mediums to construct physical aids to accompany our words. These tools are part of the communication process, used as complements to our words, where points of explanation are punctuated with visual or kinesthetic or other experiential elements to aid in encoding our thoughts more clearly.
      • Mediums for communication can be analogue, or they can be part of the digital technologies we use to communicate. Including a diagram in an email is adding a visual element to our words; even more communicative is using mediums in a compilational manner, using verbal and non-verbal communication together with additional tools, whether by sending a video accompanying the building of a diagram with an explanation, interfacing with colleagues over a large interactive display [e.g., @Mateescu.Pimmer.ea2019], or participating in a live holographic conference call where digital three-dimensional diagrams or physical props can be conjured and manipulated at will.
        • think this is too long an explanation - especially if also want to include, as part of mediums of communication, the inclusion of the context behind our thoughts, and the possibility of _removing_ rather than adding to the encoding process, like sending the direct artifacts of our thinking. Can work to shorten from after "including a diagram in an email..."
      For example, in a classroom or over dinner, we might grab a whiteboard or napkin and sketch out a diagram. In a design meeting, we might utilize props or moldable mediums to construct physical aids to accompany our words. These tools are part of the communication process, used as complements to our words, where points of explanation are punctuated with visual or kinesthetic or other experiential elements to aid in encoding our thoughts more clearly.
    • Mediums for communication can be analogue, or they can be part of the digital technologies we use to communicate. Including a diagram in an email is adding a visual element to our words; even more communicative is using mediums in a compilational manner, using verbal and non-verbal communication together with additional tools, whether by sending a video accompanying the building of a diagram with an explanation, interfacing with colleagues over a large interactive display [e.g., @Mateescu.Pimmer.ea2019], or participating in a live holographic conference call where digital three-dimensional diagrams or physical props can be conjured and manipulated at will.

      • think this is too long an explanation - especially if also want to include, as part of mediums of communication, the inclusion of the context behind our thoughts, and the possibility of _removing_ rather than adding to the encoding process, like sending the direct artifacts of our thinking. Can work to shorten from after "including a diagram in an email..."
    • Mediums for communication are not limited to two and three dimensional diagrams. The ability to include the context that gave birth to our ideas, technological affordances that allow us to send simple messages that are accompanied by access to a knowledge graph of the sources that underly ones thinking, would allow others to explore more deeply any elements in our words that were unclear, or where subject matter familiarity was falsely assumed.

      • Included, too, are methods where the encoding process is skipped entirely, where one does not consider how to put thoughts into words meant purely for communication, but shares the artifacts of their thinking directly. Live synchronous document editing is such a medium, where collaborators working together might not explain their thinking directly, but allow others to see the artifacts of their thinking directly - the writing, deleting, and restructuring that are all part of the process. Of course, skipping the encoding process does not mean that our thoughts are effectively visible, nor that the receiver does not still have to go through the decoding process. But this method of communication is one afforded by digital technologies, and not captured in examining the virtuality of communication alone.
        • Left this out of the version in Tech in Teams March 1
    • The common element in all of communication richness is the existence of the thought in the mind of one individual, where the richness of communication affords mediums for the process of conveying that thought to others. There is place for technology to help formulate the thoughts in the first place, but such leverages will be discussed later.

  • Artificial Intelligence

    • A second type, or dimension, of technology has captured our imaginations from the earliest days of science fiction: machines that can reason independently of humans, and make novel contributions. We are in the early days of Artificial Intelligence (AI), and machines cannot quite think on their own, but they can and do make physical and intellectual contributions that are not the direct products of queries from the humans they are working with. The intelligence of machines can range on how independent they are from their human counterparts.

      • In considering how machines can range in their intellectual ability, it is useful to consider varying levels of human intelligence. While all humans possess the ability to think and act independently, their ability to do so in a useful way varies considerably. At low levels of intelligence, humans can carry out repetitive tasks that they are taught how to do, and with rising intelligence comes the ability to learn more quickly and to reason independently. While machines and humans differ qualitatively in the way they find solutions to problems, the varying intelligences of humans does provide a useful analogy for understanding the variance in artificial intelligence.
      • Just like humans of simple intelligence, machines with low levels of AI can act in specified ways, carrying out repetitive tasks, usually following a set of if-then rules. Machines of this intelligence have been part of our world for decades: they may call the fire department if there is smoke, triage our emails, or keep a car at a set speed and slow it down when it approaches a car in front.
      • (Need to find that paper on the continuum of AI I came across sometime over the past week or two).
      • At low levels, machines act in specified ways, usually following a set of if-then rules. Machines of this intelligence have been part of our world for decades: they call the fire department if there's smoke, triage our emails, keep the car at a set speed and slow it down if it comes close to a car in front. *
      • At higher levels, machines can learn, taking information from the environment, making predictions about the future, and adjusting future predictions based on the accuracy of past predictions. At higher levels yet, machines can create new ideas. Emerging technologies allow machines to write essays, to to create art and design and unique illustrations. *
      • A current limitation of AI is that it needs to be fed a lot of information to learn. Machines need to see millions of pictures, paintings, and illustrations of an elephant to "understand" what it is. Humans, by contrast, can see just a single elephant, and then recognize a drawing or abstraction of it as an elephant (provided they already have developed nuanced enough schema to recognize it as a species unique from other, similar animals). Should AI develop the ability to extrapolate from limited sets of information, that would be a higher level of AI. And should AI ever reach the ability to evolve on its own, to adjust its own programming (software) and physical makeup (hardware), that might be the highest level of AI. *
    • In considering how machines can range in their intellectual ability, it is useful to consider varying levels of human intelligence. While all humans possess the ability to think and act independently, their ability to do so in a useful way varies considerably. At low levels of intelligence, humans can carry out repetitive tasks that they are taught how to do, and with rising intelligence comes the ability to learn more quickly and to reason independently. While machines and humans differ qualitatively in the way they find solutions to problems, the varying intelligences of humans does provide a useful analogy for understanding the variance in artificial intelligence.
    • Just like humans of simple intelligence, machines with low levels of AI can act in specified ways, carrying out repetitive tasks, usually following a set of if-then rules. Machines of this intelligence have been part of our world for decades: they may call the fire department if there is smoke, triage our emails, or keep a car at a set speed and slow it down when it approaches a car in front.
    • At higher levels, machines can learn, taking information from the environment, making predictions about the future, and adjusting future predictions based on the accuracy of past predictions. At higher levels yet, machines can create new ideas. Emerging technologies allow machines to write essays, to to create art and design and unique illustrations. *
    • A current limitation of AI is that it needs to be fed a lot of information to learn. Machines need to see millions of pictures, paintings, and illustrations of an elephant to "understand" what it is. Humans, by contrast, can see just a single elephant, and then recognize a drawing or abstraction of it as an elephant (provided they already have developed nuanced enough schema to recognize it as a species unique from other, similar animals). Should AI develop the ability to extrapolate from limited sets of information, that would be a higher level of AI. And should AI ever reach the ability to evolve on its own, to adjust its own programming (software) and physical makeup (hardware), that might be the highest level of AI. *

  • Augmenting Intelligence

    • But there is another dimension of technology, wherein it functions with the sense of the word as it predates the digital age. Technologies are tools, affording humans a way to deal with complex data, or with physical tasks, or with ideas that are still imprecise and nascent. This third dimension sees computers not as independently intelligent creatures of artificial origin, but as tools crafted by humans, for humans, as leverages of our own rich intelligence [@Engelbart1962].
    • Technologies in this sense have been with us every time we invented a medium that gave birth to new capabilities. Paper and writing was a technology, giving us an external memory whereby we could store more information than we could memorize, and share it with future others. Arabic numbers replaced Roman numerals, easing the use of math and paving the way for future mathematicians and their discoveries. Language itself was a technology, laying the groundwork for the rich social structure of humanity. And computers are both a technology and a medium for new technologies, being a tool in their simplest forms that computed firing tables in World War II, and allowing for the creation of many new tools to augment our intelligence.
    • There are two elements to the augmentation of intelligence. First, we must consider how technology serves as a tool for thought, providing leverage to enhance the work of humans. And second, we must consider the human-machine interface to understand how our communication with the computer affects our ability to use it as a tool.

    • Computers as a tool for thought

      • Early computers worked with existing paradigms, mimicking existing modes of thinking. Computers wrote linear documents, just as had been written by hand and then by typewriter, albeit computers added richer editing capabilities.

        • Some trace many modern computing schemas to thinking that is still rooted in the printing press, and fault this way of thinking for the limited ways in which computers currently augment our intelligence. (Personal conversations * - need to see if this was an idea they had found/written in the lit somewhere.) - edit, this is more relevant to types of human intelligence
        But the power of computers as levers for our use is richer than being fancy printing machines. Computers are a tool that allows us to interface with symbols, with representations of ideas, in new ways.
      • Picture a computer taking a complex set of paragraphs, each paragraph representing an atomic thought or idea, that might be explicitly linked to some other related paragraphs. Some of those paragraphs are related hierarchically to other paragraphs, with those higher up more abstract and those farther down, more nuanced. For a computer to allow those paragraphs to be shown in multiple places, where an edit in one place propagates across all instances; to further place those paragraphs onto a two or three dimensional spatial plane that allows for rearranging and playing around; to allow the saving of multiple instances of those spatial planes; to offer visual libraries of drawings or icons to give representational anchors to ideas such that the human sees the icon and recalls the idea without reading; to seamlessly switch back and forth between spatial and more purely textual representations of ideas; to, in short, allow a human to play with and rearrange ideas in looking to compare, contrast, and find patterns across a large repository of thoughts - for a computer to do this is nothing. Nothing, in that it requires little effort on the part of the computer, but nothing too, in that it means nothing to the computer. No additional insight can be obtained by a computer by changing the abstraction, the representation of an idea. But a human that is given the power of such a computer sees a tool that allows for the generation of new ideas, insights that come from multiple representations of thought and the ready recall of information at unprecedented scale. This is the computer functioning as a tool for thought, as a tool that allows for more innovative and insightful human thought. Computers and humans each have powerful and unique sets of capabilities, and the computer as a tool for thought allows for a complementary synergy.

    • Human-machine interface

      • While the capabilities of the computer as a tool for thought form the foundation for its augmentation of intelligence, equally important is our ability to use that tool - to give instruction to the computer.

        • In early days of computing, all instructions had to be input via punch cards, and visual displays were largely text-based [@Rheingold1985]. Even the addition of some basic graphics required a supplementary screen with a dedicated technology. Communication between human and machine was very rudimentary. With the introduction of successively more sophisticated programming languages, programmers were able to give richer instructions to computers, and with time, create interfaces such that non-programmers could talk to computers in specific ways [@Rheingold1985]. This last step was an important one, as it finally presented some of the power of computing to those who did not program - in other words, to those who did not speak computer. Computers were finally learning to speak our language, rather than we, theirs. Recent advances in natural language recognition have improved further the ability of computers to understand our language, and the field of Brain-Computer Interfacing [BCI; @Wolpaw.Birbaumer.ea2002] is exploring how in the future we might interface more symbiotically with computers and realize early visions of the computer as a symbiotic tool [@Licklider1960a].
      • In early days of computing, all instructions had to be input via punch cards, and visual displays were largely text-based [@Rheingold1985]. Even the addition of some basic graphics required a supplementary screen with a dedicated technology. Communication between human and machine was very rudimentary. With the introduction of successively more sophisticated programming languages, programmers were able to give richer instructions to computers, and with time, create interfaces such that non-programmers could talk to computers in specific ways [@Rheingold1985]. This last step was an important one, as it finally presented some of the power of computing to those who did not program - in other words, to those who did not speak computer. Computers were finally learning to speak our language, rather than we, theirs. Recent advances in natural language recognition have improved further the ability of computers to understand our language, and the field of Brain-Computer Interfacing [BCI; @Wolpaw.Birbaumer.ea2002] is exploring how in the future we might interface more symbiotically with computers and realize early visions of the computer as a symbiotic tool [@Licklider1960a].
      • Where there is confusion as to whether an aspect of technology is improving the human-machine interface, or is instead a medium for communication that improves the richness of human to human communication, it is useful to consider what the aspect of technology is helping. If an idea exists clearly in the mind of one individual, and the technology is focused on transferring that idea intact to the mind of another individual, that technology is aiding in communication richness. Where the idea itself is still unclear, and the technology is providing a medium to help gain the insight in the first place, the technology is an augmentation to intelligence.

• Technology and Team Processes

  • Intro paragraph
  • Introduce IPO model
    • While historically, exploration of the inputs that influence outputs has predated discussions of the processes by which this has happened, in the intersection of team processes and technology there is a unique opportunity, where the team processes have been the focus of extensive study whereas the technologies that are the inputs are still in their relative infancy, and there is indeed the opportunity to shape the direction of their development to be in line with the processes by which human teams work.
  • Teamwork processes as the interaction surround the execution of the tasks - and as such, teamwork processes are where the team interaction happens. So focus in this review is on teamwork rather than taskwork.

    • (Debating this point - because for creative teams, or for lots of knowledge work, there is a lot of interaction that is the work itself that matters.)
    • Relatedly - when humans interact with physical machines, the main difference between physical machine and robot is in execution of tasks. So not differentiating here between physical robots and computers.
    • (Debating this point - because for creative teams, or for lots of knowledge work, there is a lot of interaction that is the work itself that matters.)
      • Could consider adding work that @Seely2015 already explored with some part of technology - how it helps processes of idea generation and idea evaluation; and how it expands new processes with what he calls simultaneous collaboration and creating scaffolds/artifacts (which was also explored in @Fiore.Wiltshire2016)
        • (It's in this space that there's room for even more process expansion - Seely was limited in using existing, mainstream technologies. But there are explorations of how increased context and use of IA allows for a deeper merging of minds, and some new technologies today are already pushing to expand the paradigms of collaboration. It is difficult to picture where the future will bring us - (have writing somewhere about emergent phenomenon of technology.))
          • (It could be that I can leave a lot of this in idea generation - but to expand on it, how idea generation can actually entail sharing of knowledge from different functional backgrounds - and while usually, that would mean either sitting and explaining things to each other, or just sharing huge swaths of educational materials from each background, IA opens the door to a more collaborative experience where we more selectively share artifacts of our own thinking and learning as they are relevant to a problem, included with the context they draw from, so the other can explore with us as they need.)
    • Relatedly - when humans interact with physical machines, the main difference between physical machine and robot is in execution of tasks. So not differentiating here between physical robots and computers.
  • Reviews of teamwork processes:
    • [@Marks.Mathieu.ea2001a], stood test of time, on seeing teams as going through patterns of transition and action stages, and delineating processes within each stage
    • Torres et al. (under review), breaking action stage into sub-phases of acting, monitoring, recalibrating; accordingly, have added recalibration stage
    • Emergent states [@Marks.Mathieu.ea2001a], focus on specific cognitive and affective states that play large roles in literature, as reviewed by @Grossman.Friedman.ea2017TeamworkProcessesEmergent]
  • As technology interacts with team processes, it may help existing processes or hinder them.

    • Introduce Seely's (2015?) process facillitation, etc.
    • Introduce Seely's (2015?) process facillitation, etc.

  • Actual discussion of team processes, and the ways technology facilitates or impairs them.

    • Introduce discussion:
      • External to any discussion of specific processes is the area of communication richness for how it enables communication broadly, unspecific to any particular process.

        • While the generic application of this enrichment is itself reason for understanding more deeply how the other elements of technology interplay with team processes, it also bears examination for how it enables and hinders communication.
        • While the generic application of this enrichment is itself reason for understanding more deeply how the other elements of technology interplay with team processes, it also bears examination for how it enables and hinders communication.
      • Transition processes, the planning stage of a team
      • Action processes, work itself
      • Cognitive emergent states, cognitive being of a team, which changes with time, but has an ongoing influence on the way the team acts; many aspects of technology are most felt here
      • Affective emergent states, how the team feels, changes with time and has ongoing influence on the way teams act; established in long social traditions in humans, but such patterns have always changed with the introduction of new technologies - even when new mining patterns introduced to previously jack-of-all-trades miners [@Trist.Bamforth1951].

        • Focus of a lot of literature lately, especially the trust aspects, for AI in particular
        • Also some risk of unfamiliarity or discomfort with IA technologies [@Seely2015]
        • Focus of a lot of literature lately, especially the trust aspects, for AI in particular
        • Also some risk of unfamiliarity or discomfort with IA technologies [@Seely2015]
    • (Intro all the above; then begin breakdown.)
      • Transition processes
        • mission analysis
        • goal speficiation
        • strategy formulation (focus on deliberate and contingency planning)
      • Action processes
      • Sub-action phase processes
        • recalibration
      • Cognitive emergent states
      • Affective emergent states
      • MTS processes