It seems that S&P want to explore the spacial relationships within their projects. Space here seems to be thought of as a context. Place is either the locality of the exchange, or probably more intriguingly, the specific localities of those interacting in relation to one another. Within the space (context) of Max's experience, for example, he might have refused or failed to acknowledge the place of the participants with specific regard to their knowledge of computers and the specific languages that constitute computer usage.

I find it interesing that in the maps space is constituted by the project (and not a physical reality) and that place centers on the artifacts produced: the reports and not on the people trying to access or produce those reports. The relationship between those requesting specific data seems to be subverted by some assumptions about who will be using the final product. But I'm feeling a powerful rant on company organization coming on, so I'll stop this monkey bit.

I suppose for me the big question that this piece poses is something very close to my own interests: what is the effect of transparent technology? This is some wonderfully reflective work on how technology becomes a background tool and a powerful argument that the seemingly transparent technology has specific and situated value within the system. However, at the same time, the S&P seem to shy away from relating human/computer interaction as a technology (enter cybernetics). I say this because I don't see it coming through in their research as they omit all mention of training/documentation in their second example and then admit but quickly pass on from the lack of training/documentation in their third example. Maybe I'm missing some key passages, and I welcome a second (or Nth) set of eyes to help me see it. This is something I'm very interested in exploring further.