Since the term "electronic workspace" - as used here- is one of my
constructions, I would like to follow the comments by Nora DeJohn
<[log in to unmask]> posted under the Subject: Re: Establishing
Electronic Workplaces & Communities. In that Nora writes the following:

>...I agree employees are as always sacrificed, but I'm trying to understand
if we are >really teaching people to prefer machines and faceless contact...
>
and quotes the following:
>> I wonder if the creation of the  electronic workplace has more to do with
>>how organizations are already faring with regard to their employees...for
>>example we hear of workplaces that have downsized in terms of employees only
>>to put their resources into technology.  Which are the assets? - people or
>>the technology?

The "electronic workspace" is not the same an "an electronic workplace". The
term is tied to a model of social process (including work but also including
all the processes of civil society - social, political, cultural, etc.) in
which the traditional literal venue (physical space, literal time) is joined
by an electronic venue (constructed from information technologies linked by
electronic networks.)

The old (traditional) venue is quickly being joined by a new (electronic
venue) and social processes are starting to take place across both domains.

There are a number of important issues with regard to how the institutions
of society (capitalist firms, democratic governments, etc.) use the
technology to make fewer/more worse/better jobs, and how individuals (you
and I) and groups (my and your community of profession) deal with the
technology. There are tonnes of interesting questions. Can this venue be
used to make government more accountable. Can science be more connected and
responsible (as science)? Etc. etc....

As well, as Harold Innis argues, every new venue for communications changes
how people deal with each other across time and space. The book devalues the
work of oral history and the oral tradition. The telephone allows one to "be
there" without "being" there. Our phone company used the motto "Reach out
and touch some one". A financial trust company is currently pushing its
online service with "Put your Money where your Mouse is".

New tools prompt new behaviour. The electronic networks can be thought of as
a new tool kit. The term "electronic workspace" suggests that they are more.
Collectively they produce a new venue for all aspects of social process.
Some will take them to replace labour with machines. Others will use them to
'reach out and touch somebody" for better or worse. The issue here, for
CLICK4HP, is what does this new venue mean for health promotion, for
population health strategies, for sustainiable health approaches.

Someone recently said, it would be a good idea to extend the use of CLICK4HP
to more than just posting notices (or posting opinions I might add). That
was the original purpose of CLICK4HP. It was/is not just using email to
share ideas about health promotion. It was more than that. It was to ask
WHAT DOES THIS SPACE MEAN FOR HEALTH PROMOTION. To only use it to share
information is a bit like saying that once North America had been discovered
by Europe, its main role would be to facilitate sending and receiving things
from the far east. In fact, it was treated as a territory. Unfortunately, it
was treated as a territory in which to do great evil as Europeans distroyed
or dominated the existing peoples and cultures.

Think of the electronic venue as a territory (a virtual workspace) with
certain features and tendencies, but no people, in which we can do good or
bad things in the pursuit of health promotion, population health, etc. The
challenge (and focus for this CLICK4HP space) is to ask - how can we use
this space to do better what we do. This goes well beyond the efficiency of
using E-mail over FAX, Phone or postage stamps.

It is always bad to end a long posting with an idea, but I will return to
this idea in a month, when the first public site is up and running - but not
in the health promotion area. Let me describe what we are about to do in
another funding area. W

e will start posting on a web site the full project proposes as submitted to
a funding agency from those seeking funding. Eveyone will know who has
applied, what they have applied for, who their collaborators are, what they
intend to do, and whether they got funded or didn't get funded. Sitting
along side the on-line database of proposals will be a public discussion
site (browser netnews linked to a listserv like this for those with only
email) to discuss the area, the process, the funding, etc.

Ask yourself, how would the local social process around funding for health
promotion change, where you live and work, if anyone with access to a
browser could examine all the details of all the proposals submitted to your
funding authorities. Also, what sort of dialogues would you expect to take
place in the public site, between the various stakeholders, funders, etc.

We think that bringing this level of transparancy to the process will
increase accountability and promote collaboration. We are going to test this
with a real process in which real funds are being allocated to real
projects, on a global scale. This is not a test site (i.e., it doesn't stop
at some point), but we will adjust the approach as we learn what works and
what doesn't. We are committed to using this virtual workspace as a vehicle
for increased transparancy and accountability for funding and to increase
the chances of collaboration. The same could be done within health promotion
funding.

As I say, ask yourself how this would work in the funding activities you are
familiar with. It is hard to believe that the answer is: "No Change". This
is an example of what we mean by the use of the virtual workspace.

Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]> =<or>= <[log in to unmask]>