Challenging the myths of distributed collaboration
From Social Signal, Alexandra Samuel Rob Cottingham's new consulting effort (and fun, cool website), comes this interesting definition of "distributed collaboration networks." Now Alex, bear with me, but I'm gonna push back here a bit... I don't know if you offered this up more as a vision than as a definition, but I think there is an important piece missing to your equation.What is a distributed collaboration network?
OK, first I would make the distinction that a collaboration network is a container that might contain teams, communities or other group forms, but I think it is important to make a distinction between a network (loose ties) and a community (bounded membership).
A distributed collaboration network is the next generation of online community, creating shared value through technology-supported collaboration. It leverages “Web 2.0” tools – tools like blogging, tagging, and RSS – that push the Internet beyond information portals and towards collaborative communities. It’s a decentralized, non-hierarchical way of working together that facilitates nimble, project-specific teamwork within a larger, ongoing community.
This community is supported by an ecosystem of web sites that share content and relationships using technologies that make group collaboration an almost effortless extension of individual workflow. A blog post written on one site might pop up in a topical web page on another part of the network. A collection of useful web resources created by one user could be syndicated and republished by half a dozen other sites. A breaking news story could be published on multiple sites, inspiring a blog-based discussion held across multiple sites that is then collected and mirrored on a single web page. There is no hub in a distributed network, just an ever-expanding network of sites that each offers a different point of entry, catering to particular interests and users.
Next, I'd like to know a bit more about how a network pushes the internet towards collaboration. People push, networks contain. Or how values are created through collaboration. Isn't it that values support collaboration?
OK, now, if this is a vision, a dream, I'm ok with the following line. If not, we're in trouble. "This community is supported by an ecosystem of web sites that share content and relationships using technologies that make group collaboration an almost effortless extension of individual workflow."
I have yet to experience effortless collaboration. Period. I have experienced enjoyable and fun collaboration. I have endured miserable collaboration. But it has never been effortless. This is because collaboration asks us to go beyond our selves and commit to others as well.
I worry about creating utopian dreams that collaboration becomes effortless because of tools and technology. Collaboration will become easier when people shift towards a cooperative value set. When they are willing to slow down for the group, rather than simply running on their own individual cycles. When they can find a connection of shared values or goals. Tools will help - YES. But they come second after people and their processes.
I challenge the notion that collaboration will increase simply because of the availability of a new set of interrelated tools, or Web 2.0. This is the same trap that allowed thousands to think of e-learning as a fast and cheap alternative to other options, when in fact it is a complex and viable approach, but not always fast, nor easy, especially when you want quality outcomes. Good elearning requires a shift in operating culture. Likewise, collaboration requires a cultural shift.
Finally, collaboration across boundaries and facilitated by Web 2.0 tools will increase when we make space for it in our lives. Did you ever have the experience when someone asked you to ADD something online to your existing job/life/patterns. Not replace something else. ADD. Do this e-learning course in addition to your work. Add this collaboration opportunity to your work load. Add it to an already over scheduled hour/day/week. I fear that with the provision of these cool web 2.0 tools on a worker's desk, the next pronouncement will be "collaborate!" but with no shift.
I believe there is a great deal of potential to distributed collaboration. I'd go so far as to say it will be a required competence and essential business/organization activity. It will be facilitated to some extent by tools. But it won't happen without us increasing our skills, practices and intentions for collaboration.
/soapbox
posted by Nancy White at 6:12 PM
5 Comments:
Excellent points! Your statement about the necessity of collaboration being rooted in a cooperative nature has been overlooked by most. There is the necessity of a cooperative value set as being the base of any collaborations. We have technologies that seemingly allow "cooperative" processess but in reality they are only pre-defined works with a contributed effort. I believe most of us wish to be cooperative but have been hampered by the false nature of the technologies.
I agree that the culture must change before collaboration tools become truly effective in organizations. What comes to my mind is, aren't we seeing "effortless" collaboration happening outside of organizations ... Flickr, del.icio.us, blogs ... already?
The problem is that most of the people using these tools (effortlessly) are not typically the same people that make the big decisions in today's organizations. In a few years this obviously will change. The question facing us today is, can we accelerate the change?
Gene, you remind us that everything has at least two faces (dark/light)!
Lee, mentioned the ease at which some people have used Flickr to collaborate. I think it would be a great learning exercise to try and understand why and if the context is a key condition of success.
I think about the type of collaboration required in an internal team; the type for a cross organizational team; a voluntary CoP... they all have different conditions.
What we see in Flickr most reminds me of a CoP - voluntary and driven by people with curiosity, a passion for doing and learning.
So, does that mean we need to cultivate those passions as a prerequisite for successful collaboration practices. Then, dropping in tools might be a great catalyst??
Then the other issue of decision makers which suggests that there is a type of leadership quality that supports collaboration, and others that don't. Ugh. This is where I get forlorn. :-(
Hi, Nancy --
Thanks for your post! You can check out my thoughts in response on my blog.
Nancy, just found your site through Rob's blog and I have to say I'm glad I found you (as well as Rob) because my thoughts are basically a combination of both of your thoughts put together.
"I think it is important to make a distinction between a network (loose ties) and a community (bounded membership)."
I'm not sure of the full details of Rob's vision but with regards to mine, it is not a network or a community but both. It is a network of communities that I call "connected communities" (which Rob calls "collaborative communities").
"Next, I'd like to know a bit more about how a network pushes the internet towards collaboration. People push, networks contain. Or how values are created through collaboration. Isn't it that values support collaboration?"
You're correct that it is the people that create and foster the collaboration but obviously the network technology needs to be able to support that type of collaboration as well. With regards to values supporting collaboration, think of culture itself as an environment. Not only does the culture influence those within it but those people themselves influence the culture in turn. It works both ways. Therefore, yes to support those values, the culture of the people needs to push these ideals but at the same time the technologies you use need to be able to support these values as well. I call this "cultivating technology".
"I have yet to experience effortless collaboration."
I think what Rob is getting at here is that the technology itself is not impeding you from your collaboration. I mean think about how weblog software has enabled people to communicate upon the web "almost effortlessly". You still obviously have to commit yourself to that relationship in some way though, otherwise people won't commit themselves to coming to your site.
"This is because collaboration asks us to go beyond our selves and commit to others as well."
This in fact is the greatest issue in collaborating on a large scale. How they hell do you commit yourself to collaborating with millions of people on such a large global scale? How could you possibly collaborate with that many people? The irony of the answer is that you don't. Instead of focusing on collaborating with hundreds, thousands, or millions of people, the idea is to collaborate with just a very small group of people in your "local" community and then when you network these small communities together you get this collaborative and collective global effort.
"When they can find a connection of shared values or goals. Tools will help - YES. But they come second after people and their processes."
Exactly, I couldn't agree more! The technology is just the tool that the people utilize to realize their visions. Of course, the better the tool, the easier it is to achieve your vision.
"Likewise, collaboration requires a cultural shift."
Again I totally agree and Rob agrees with this point as well when he says "we’ve seen a lot to suggest that those values are alive". I agree with him but still not to the extent that I would like to see. Many companies today still don't get it and haven't made the "leap in thinking" to realize that the change they need to move forward doesn't come from fancy new technology but from within themselves and the cultural values they are pushing, albeit sometimes unknowningly, within their companies.
"Did you ever have the experience when someone asked you to ADD something online to your existing job/life/patterns. Not replace something else. ADD."
Your right, we can't continually be adding this and that because as I mentioned above we'd overextend ourselves and wouldn't be able to commit to the collaborative effort. However, the right technology in my mind isn't something that forces you to add anything, instead it is something that utilizes what you are already doing. Think of this technology like a device that allows you to "tune" your mind with other minds in the world who share your exact same visions and dreams. It isn't just about finding meaningful information, it is about finding meaningful collaborative relationships as well.
"It will be facilitated to some extent by tools. But it won't happen without us increasing our skills, practices and intentions for collaboration."
I believe it won't happen without us having a change of thinking both with regards to utilizing these different cultural values but also with regards to finding a different way to design and structure our ideas and thoughts (our content) so that they can easily be interfaced with others collectively to achieve this large scale collaboration on larger goals. However, I still believe this can be achieved with existing simple technologies such as weblogs, RSS, and tags, as Rob mentions, without the need for some centralized Uber cool new Web 2.0 service.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home