計(jì)算機(jī)和相應(yīng)軟件的使用使得工作效率大大提高,卻也導(dǎo)致了工作的孤立化。然而即時(shí)聊天軟件讓工作重新回到團(tuán)隊(duì)之中。
測試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識(shí):
aphorism格言;警句['æf?r?z(?)m]
artefact工藝品['ɑ?t?fækt]
mount增加[ma?nt]
hypertext超文本['ha?p?tekst]
consciousness意識(shí);知覺['k?n??sn?s]
sheer絕對(duì)的;透明的[???]
fluid流動(dòng)的;流體;液體['flu??d]
hierarchical分層的[ha??'rɑ?k?k(?)l]
entail使需要;引起;需要[?n'te?l]
By Richard Waters
One of the best descriptions of the impact of modern technology on its users dates from 50 years ago. It was coined by John Culkin, a friend of media theorist Marshall McLuhan. Writing about the great man's ideas, Culkin came up with this suitably McLuhan-sounding aphorism: “We shape our tools and thereafter, our tools shape us.”
His point was that humans develop new tools to meet the needs of the moment, but then the ways of working embodied by these artefacts become ingrained. The tools end up defining how their users think about the problems they face — at least, until either mounting frustrations with the inadequacy of the tools, or a different set of problems, causes a whole new set of tools to be invented and the process begins again.
By coincidence, next year will also mark the 50th anniversary of the moment the world got its first glimpse of the tools that would completely change working life. At a public demonstration in San Francisco, Doug Engelbart, an inventor and technology visionary working for the Stanford Research Institute, showed off a computer embodying ideas that were years ahead of their time. These included a mouse, a graphical user interface and hypertext.
Engelbart's presentation is known in the tech world as the Mother of All Demos. It was a glimpse into a future where computers would become flexible platforms on which people would be able to elaborate and communicate their thoughts, rather than just a blinking command line interface.
But the ways of working represented by the software tools that became familiar on the PC have their own limitations. Stewart Butterfield, chief executive of group messaging service Slack, says that computing horsepower increased exponentially to make the software more useful, but the methods of work this enabled were still limited.
“Someone in the finance team today using Excel is super-powered compared to this demo in 1968,” he says. But that person is still tied to a way of working — and thinking — that is baked into the architecture of the technology. The PC applications create a degree of isolation; only after the fact is the product of their work sent to others — often as an email attachment.
By contrast, “most real work gets done in groups,” says Butterfield. “The challenges around communication, co-ordination, alignment are no more solved than they were 50 years ago.”
Anyone entering working life today will find the tools of the job in a state of extreme flux. Spreadsheets, documents, PowerPoint presentations have all been changed by the cloud — sharing and group editing are the norm.
Meanwhile, new collaboration tools are spreading virally, as workers take up new internet services that make their own lives easier. These include the stream of group consciousness represented by a Slack messaging channel, the open-ended discussion around a project supported by Dropbox's Paper, or the list-centric collaboration tool developed by Quip, which was recently acquired by Salesforce.
If these and similar services have been shaped to make work more effective, then it is fair to ask how they, in turn, will shape their users — and what effect will they have on the organisations where they are being adopted.
At their worst — as anyone who uses them can attest — apps like Slack make big demands. They create an expectation that users maintain an almost constant “presence” and respond in real time. The sheer volume of communication they support can be all-consuming. Future workers could end up looking like today's most addicted smartphone users: constantly distracted, unable to think deeply about any particular task, restless for new stimulation.
But it need not turn out that way. The techniques for managing real-time collaboration tools — and the social mores around how they are used — are still evolving. Also, they exist alongside other tools that also demand attention: that creates tension for workers, who may find themselves pulled between email apps, message streams and other communication networks. Over time, as work flows to the most suitable channel, that could change.
The rapid viral adoption of tools like Slack (it was teams of workers who took up the service, after all, not their corporate IT departments) certainly shows they fill a gap. Microsoft has also seen the writing on the wall and has come up with an alternative service, called Teams.
The kind of work that tools like these are designed to enable is group-based, more fluid and geared to specific projects. They make it easier for people to move between ad hoc groups, which can form and disband as needed. They are suited to short, intensive bursts of communication among small groups that need to deal with problems in real time, not save them up for some future meeting.
If the optimists are right, this will liberate workers. They will become better communicators, more willing collaborators. For many, it will sound like a more fulfilling working life than the more static, hierarchical processes that have often determined how companies operate.
Of course, today's new tools will not change office culture overnight or end the compliance straitjacket that determines how many aspects of work are conducted. Just because the internet — and, now, cloud computing — have handed entrepreneurs like Slack's Butterfield the power to invent new tools for work, it does not mean the software they come up with will represent the final answer. It will shape its users just as surely as the software that came before did, instilling certain ways of working and thinking — with all the drawbacks that entails.
At the Mother of All Demos nearly half a century ago, Doug Engelbart showed what life in a more connected workplace might look like. His presentation included videoconferencing, as well as a way for workers in different places to jointly edit the same document at the same time. More fluid forms of communication and collaboration are finally here. Work — and workers — may never be the same again.
1.What Engelbart's presentation is called in the tech world?
A.Atlas
B.ASIMO
C.the Mother of All Demos
D.Schrödinger's Cat
答案(1)
2.According to Stewart Butterfield, what did PC applications create?
A.A degree of isolation
B.A sense of collaboration
C.A different working mode
D.A faster working pace
答案(2)
3.Communication tools like Slack make sure what?
A.Work efficiency
B.Employee morale
C.Peer relationship
D.Work is group-based
答案(3)
4.What is the author's attitude towards future?
A.Disappointed
B.Optimistic
C.Doubtful
D.Worried
答案(4)
(1)答案:C.the Mother of All Demos
解釋:50年前Doug Engelbart在舊金山的展示被科技界稱為“計(jì)算機(jī)之母”。
(2)答案:A.A degree of isolation
解釋:Stewart Butterfield認(rèn)為,電腦等現(xiàn)代科技設(shè)備的廣泛使用,使得每個(gè)人的工作變得孤立起來。
(3)答案:D.Work is group-based
解釋:像Slack這樣的即時(shí)聊天工具,為同事之間提供了交流的平臺(tái),確保了任何工作的完成都是團(tuán)隊(duì)內(nèi)的。
(4)答案:B.Optimistic
解釋:作者更傾向于支持樂觀者的觀點(diǎn),認(rèn)為未來的工作模式仍然會(huì)是團(tuán)隊(duì)式的,而新興的聊天工具也會(huì)有所幫助。