Category: collaboration

Engagement and motivation in collaborative action

Flickr photo by Philippe Boukobza
Tony Burgess, one of the founders of the CommpanyCommand community (and author) made a great post on Com-Prac this week around engagement in communities of practice. It was so terrific, I want to point to it and share a snippet from his post.

com-prac : Message: Re: [cp] CoPs and unpaid volunteers
The question I have asked myself is, “What is the experience of becoming an
especially active member of a community of practice?” In the process of
searching out this question, what emerged for me was a sense for what makes
members’ experience meaningful. It is the depth of meaning that they make from
the experience of being an active member that seems to propel them forward in
their journey. In a nutshell, here are three factors that stood out to me:

The experience is meaningful to me (an active member) along three dimensions:

(1) Connection: As a result of this experience I am becoming connected to
like-hearted leaders who I value. This is about relationship.

(2) Contribution: I am able to give back and make a difference–to contribute
my unique experience and talent to something greater than self. I am making a
positive difference for people and a collective that I value.

(3) Personal Development: As a result of this experience, I am personally
developing and becoming more effective as a leader and a person than I would
otherwise be. I am being exposed to people and experiences that change me. I’m
learning.

Given this understanding, a follow-up question follows:? “What can we as a
community of practice do to be a catalyst for the meaningful experience of
members?”

These three dimensions are terrific. They are also pretty general. A good starting place, but I think in practice, we need to go deeper. How do we understand these motivations? Both in CoPs and in other collaborative settings.

In yesterday’s telecons in our Knowledge Sharing Workshop, we asked what people thought motivated others to share knowledge. We talked about “gaining visibility for work” and “getting useful information.” They were all “true” answers, but very general. Easy to say yes to on first blush, but often prioritized at the bottom of giant to-do lists and thus engagement rarely happens.

Then we asked them personally, what motivated them to share their knowledge in the workshop and the answers were much more specific and actionable. People had a task they needed to do involving knowledge sharing. They wanted to expand their network of colleagues working in KS because they didn’t have enough of those people in their daily work life. And yes, some of them wanted to share because they believed in sharing. Those seem to be the people we can count on, but make up a fairly small percentage of any group we are working with.

When we are trying to design, support, create conditions for collaboration, how do we best suss out motivation to increase the chance of actual engagement? What are your “sussing” strategies?

Photo Credit:

view photos Uploaded in Flickr on February 4, 2008
by Philippe Boukobza

Product selection with your network

Steve Crandall\'s old Western Electric handset updated with a modern speaker and microphone. There is a switchable bluetooth/usb link to the MacBook Pro. Charging is done using a usb connection. Built 2005.I have a tendency to destroy my computer headsets/mics with regularity. I run over the cords, the plugs loosen and then the sound degrades. It is time again to buy a new set, but instead of buying the cheapest set at the local office store, I decided to get the recommendations of my network – since many are also frequent users of this product.

Here is what I learned.

Now all I have to do is make up my mind. That is always the hard part and the downside of research. But the fact remains that with a less-than-140 character question, I got quick, actionable feedback. Think about that in terms of knowledge management and knowledge sharing!
Photo:
Steve Crandall’s old Western Electric handset updated with a modern speaker and microphone. There is a switchable bluetooth/usb link to the MacBook Pro. Charging is done using a usb connection. Built 2005. (Thanks, Steve, for letting me use the picture!)

Open Sourced Bright Ideas and Micro Support

EyeBeam CFL CoverVia Emily Gertz’s tweet of a recent blog post of hers, I was led to Bright Idea Shade on mandiberg.com.

From Eyebeam OpenLab comes and open source idea for making a cover for those glare-y compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) we are all installing to save energy. But the bare bulbs are, well, unbearable. I’ll embed the video below, because it is wonderful, but I want to add some additional observations about process and values here. The light bulb information is practical and usable, but what is going on with EyeBeam OpenLabs work is what I’m focused on.

What is going on here?

  1. A problem or need is identified
  2. A solution is created (in this case, building upon a previous product)
  3. The idea is opened up an shared and…
  4. an invitation is made to offer that idea to a manufacturer to reproduce it! (Eyebeam apparently also plans to produce a DIY kit but that is not yet on their site.)

The question that then surface include:

  1. What is in this for Eyebeam? (Beyond possible sales of a DIY kit which any other manufacturer could also create) What values are being expressed – beyond valuing open source. That part is already clear. Eyebeam’s “about” page gives a 404 error, so it is hard to fully discern by just looking at their web site. It looks like a non profit organization. So I’ll make some guesses that this organization is about the application of design in support of some greater good. Thus they find willing funders to fund their work and they “give away” their ideas as the result of that work. The additional benefit is the support of the designers and artists in doing their work and advancing their own practice. Hopefully the open source values continue past their participation in Eyebeam work. As a result, Eyebeam builds a good reputation and attracts more funding. So doing good does good for the existence of the organization. Does this apply only to non profits? As a small business person, I’d say no, it applies more widely. But is it practiced? Have businesses seen the strategic value of a triple bottom line that includes public good?
  2. What motivates people to solve problems and give away the answers? Is there a certain set of characteristics that motivate people to do this? My personal guess is yes – thinks like a perspective of abundance (as in good ideas) rather than scarcity, belief in the existence of many possibilities, and some sense of optimism. But I think it is bigger than that. What else?
  3. Why aren’t more people doing this? Or are they, and it is just invisible? (And if it is too invisible, what might we do to make it visible?) What can we be doing as individuals, groups, organizations and networks to amplify the positive effects of acts like Eyebeam’s which offer solutions to us? Can we encourage this beyond a lightbulb cover to things like improving girl’s education in an African nation, or improved health practices in Palestine?

OK, so bear with me. Here is the next leap in my thinking today. Is there a link between the work of organizations like EyeBeam and the idea of micro-lending. Kiva.org has opened a window of possibility on how an ordinary person in the US can support an individual entrepreneur in a country half way around the world who would otherwise not be able to start or continue their small business which supports their family. Tune Your World is trying to support musicians in countries without the economies to support their work by getting support from people like me who can support them.

Can we micro-finance and encourage ideas that solve all sorts of problems? Is there a non-financial element of micro-support? What would it look like? Is that kind of support useful or destructive? (maybe both!)

What do you think? What do you know of going on like this that might help us explore these ideas? I ask, because I know from my experience that top down, large organization-driven solutions are not going to work for all the needs in the world. We need to identify, understand and expand other options and approaches. I want to learn more.

Now, the video, in case you have a bare CFL that is glaring you down:

CFL Cover from Eyebeam OpenLab

Production by Simon Jolly

Soundtrack by I Am Jen (iamjen.com)
SteveTouch(TM) by Steve Lambert
Project by Michael Mandiberg and the Eyebeam OpenLab
http://www.eyebeam.org/project/cfl

Flickr Photo credit:

view photos Uploaded on February 14, 2008
by mandiberg

Now, I also have a problem I just discovered. and I’m looking for some bright ideas. I got home from a three week trip to find large-ish animal doo doo in my basement and now I don’t even want to go down there to find out what left the doo doo, how it got in and how to make sure it (they) are out. Anyone in Seattle wanna come help me? Signed – chicken Nancy

More on replacing business travel from Jessica Lipnack

Flickr CC from linh_nganLast week I wrote about Obliterate or strategically use business travel?

Then I saw this post on Facebook by NetTeams wizardess, Jessica Lipnack. Her emphasis on the social processes resonates. It is worth a link here…

Facebook | Jessica Lipnack’s Notes

…Many reporters, for example, The New York Times’s fine one, Steve Lohr, whose article, “As travel costs rise, more meetings go virtual,” took the headline earlier this week. Nothing wrong with Lohr’s article, good, solid reporting with news for the newbies to the area: Cisco’s telepresence offering, high price tag aside, makes participants feel like they’re “there;” “companies of all sizes are beginning to shift to Web-based meetings for training and sales;” and this, worth the pull quote:

A report last month by the Global e-Sustainability Initiative, a group of technology companies, and the Climate Group, an environmental organization, estimated that up to 20 percent of business travel worldwide could be replaced by Web-based and conventional videoconferencing technology.

Twenty percent? Me thinks a lot higher. But, numbers aside, where Lohr’s article is like all the rest – and where it misses the point – is in this: Technology alone does not solve the problem. I’ve harped on about this before. Our old motto, “90% people, 10% technology,” is being drowned out by the reflexive action whereby companies/organizations throw technology into the hands that once held airline tickets.

Here are a couple of more related articles if you are interested in this topic of when and how to replace F2F meetings with virtual meetings.

July 31 Addition: As an added afterthought (I keep adding links) this is also a technology stewardship issue. Who is building the capacity to use these tools well? What does their community of practice look like!)

Photo Credit:
Uploaded on July 7, 2008
by linh.ngân

Obliterate or strategically use business travel?

Uploaded on July 24, 2008 law_kevinFast Company has a provocative article out yesterday under their “Big Idea” flag about “obliterating” business travel. Sounds like quite a headline, eh?

July 23, 2008
“Within five years, technology will obliterate the need for business travel.” – Inspired by new videoconferencing technologies and rising fuel costs

… Companies too are making an active effort to limit employees’ air travel for the duel-pronged benefits of cutting costs and being environmentally friendly. AT&T has reportedly reduced employee air miles by 15% through video conferencing and Web meetings, while Accenture plans to have 22 video conferencing rooms installed around the world by the end of this year.

OK, I am in firm agreement that we can cut out a lot of business travel, particularly when we are doing things like information dissemination. I cringe each time go to or hear of international gatherings where the structured interaction is all presentation. Thank goodness for meals and coffee breaks. But I think we should seriously rethink large conferences. See Jim Benson’s post on this… But what about the other things we get on airplanes and fly around the world to do, both explicitly and implicitly, with each other? (No, I’m NOT talking about mile-high clubs!)

We know we can do meaningful work and learning with each other at a distance, even without video conferencing. (In fact, please, I don’t want to have to get out of my yoga clothes for a vid!). Sales can happen via online technologies. But is there a “throw out the baby with the bathwater” element here? Will we obliterate business travel, or use is both more sparingly and strategically? I think it is the latter and here’s why.

Learning is not an instant… it is a path
I was chatting with Tony Karrer (lots of good stuff in his blog and at his new venture with Michele Martin, Work Literacy) earlier today about “training.” Oi, such a word. One of my friends says “training is for dogs, learning is for humans.” I’m not quite that rabid (or am I a dog?) but often feel like training is dumping information on people (see this clever slide show for an articulation of this.) We have expectations that training as an isolated act solves a skill or more general learning need.

In my experience, it ain’t that simple. Yes, there are certainly things we can learn and apply with a quick workshop – online or face to face (F2F). But taking learning and deepening it, applying it to work, innovating upon it – that takes time. And it sometimes takes poking at the issue from more than one direction. Working on it over time. Or perhaps with more than one stick. This is where blending online and F2F can sometimes be the thing that puts us over the current hurdle. I learn something online with you today. I go off and work on it. We help each other online. Then we get to meet, have a great meal and we start out talking about our projects, and then we go from there, discovering new learning from each other we never even imagined. Kismet, made possible by the space we create when we take time to meet F2F.

Why is there something important about this F2F stuff? Because so much of learning is nurtured by the social context and sometimes the online social context is not always sufficient for everyone. I find it very satisfying. My sister does not. Have we had some shared experiences to compare? You bet. So those of us who smugly say we can do it all online have not yet found a way to translate those rich experiences to others with different preferences and styles of learning and interacting. And, hey, we still can’t sit down and make/share a meal fully online.

Going F2F creates a different and time bounded social context. We give each other full attention for a limited amount of time. Online, we may spread that attention out – even if we are using synchronous technologies. One of the most powerful gathering experiences for me is being able to work and stay at the same place with people – a research facility, the same hotel, or in a colleagues home. The mix of work and play, of social and intellectual, creates a different sort of stew that jumpstarts my learning differently than online. Being able to “sleep on” what we said today makes tomorrow’s conversation deeper. This F2F stuff is different, not better or worse.

We benefit from that difference. The translocation to another place jostles new ideas and opens us up. We get out of our cocoon and I think that can be very productive. And in my experience, it bolsters and deepens both the learning and the subsequent online interactions.

So lets reduce business travel – it saves time, money and the environment. But lets not obliterate it because there is value in the social learning context of face to face gatherings, particularly ones that open the space for us to create meaning and ideas together. Skip the panel and the presentation. Break out the good food, wine and tea. Let’s sit elbow to elbow, look over each others’ shoulders and let’s get to work. AND, let’s do great things together online.

Photo Credit (CC)

view photostream Uploaded on July 24, 2008
by law_keven