This paper studies two user groups for the first commercial Univac computers, Univac Scientific Exchange (USE) and Univac User Association (UUA). It provides insights into how early computers – bulky, unreliable high-technology artifacts – became a commercial product in the mid 1950s. User groups were instrumental in shaping computer use, and in mediating the customers’ and the manufacturer’s vision of the new product. User groups also bridged the gap between free scientific exchange of knowledge and economic competition. Finally, this paper gives insights into interactions between governmental, military and industrial agencies, providing a new perspective on the military-academic-industrial complex.
The two Univac user groups, USE and UUA, primarily served to exchange knowledge between Univac customers and Univac producers. Both groups formed in late 1955 and required their members to have or at least to consider a Univac computer installation. Univac computers were part of the legacy of one of the first commercial computer models, designed by John W. Mauchly (see Akera’s paper) and John P. Eckert. In the early 1950s, companies conceived of their Univac computers as status symbol and proudly placed them on public display, and ‘Univac’ briefly served as the generic name for computers. USE was formed by several West Coast aerospace and defense contractors around their Univac 1103 installations. USE members planned intensive cooperation, standardizing and exchanging programs for example, and even allocating manpower, similar to the IBM user group Share (Akera 2003). They enacted rigorous membership restrictions, and they worked closely with Remington Rand, by then the producer of Univac computers. UUA, in contrast, started with a series of informal meetings between representatives from a few Northeast companies that owned Univac computers. UUA’s primary objective was the free exchange of ideas, and its meetings resembled academic conferences. UUA members only slowly formalized their association. They pursued comparatively lenient membership regulations and they aimed at independence from Remington Rand’s Univac Division. Both user groups differed considerably in their membership regulations, degree of formalization, the extent of their cooperation, and their relations with Remington Rand.
This paper discusses how the different institutional contexts shaped USE and UUA, and how they affected the circulation of knowledge, programs, subroutines, documents and other objects between the Univac producers and consumers. Recognizing the heterogeneous nature of the user groups’ institutional ecologies (Star/Griesemer 1989) allows us to understand their modes of technical exchange beyond the dichotomy of scientific pursuit of truth and jealous protection of proprietary rights.
References:
Akera, A., 2001, Voluntarism and the Fruits of Collaboration. The IBM User Group Share. Technology and Culture, 42, pp. 710-736.
Star, S. and Griesemer, J., 1989, Institutional Ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-1939. Social Studies of Science, 19, pp. 387-420.