Posts Tagged ‘in sync’

Teams, communities and networks in terms of communication forms

Monday, February 8th, 2010

Cross-posted from Mathemagenic

Communication in co-located and distributed teamsWhile I came with the communication egg model to talk about things missing in distributed teams I feel that it could be useful in more contexts. In particularly to talk about the differences between different types of social constructions in the knowledge management context.

[At this point it makes sense to go and read Shrunken communication in distributed teams (the egg of communication :) ]

One of the things I came up when playing with different ideas was to position teams, communities and networks in respect to the most prevalent forms of communication in each case (in all cases the other forms of communication are there as well, but are not at the core of it).

Core communication types for teams, communities and networks

Team communication is heavily shaped by the shared goals and agreed communication formats/processes. It’s very much about getting things done together and strong ties that needed for it.

Communication in communities is a bit further from actual work, but still has lots of connection with it (e.g. Q&A mode, where one uses an opportunity of being together with other experts to ask for solutions for a problem). It’s usually a mix of stronger and weaker ties that help to open up and share local practices. There is enough commonality and trust to hold people together and enough diversity to support learning.

Network communication is more opportunity-based and informal. There is not much in terms of shared goals and recurrent conversations, the ties are weak or latent. However, there is enough connectivity and opportunities to communicate that result in cross-fertilisation and emergent ideas and practices.

I guess the things on the diagonal could be also about the types of communication that is supported by specific managerial practices (performance – knowledge management/professional development – informal learning/innovation) or social tools (groupware – community tools – social media).

You can also use this framework to think on what is needed in terms of moving between different types of social constructions: e.g. moving from network to community by picking shared interests and adding a bit of structure (rhyhm, roles) or community-born projects, where shared goals and even more structures (e.g. deadlines :) appear to make sure that things get done. In the opposite direction you might think of “usual” KM practice of spotting overlaps between teams and establishing semi-structured community spaces and processes to make sure that practices are shared across and going to networking events or sharing one’s traces online to create opportunities for informal interaction that brings new contacts and new ideas.

***

Does it make any sense? I’m actually more happy with the picture than we the text around it, but anyway all of this stuff is thinking in progress, so hopefully will eventually evolve into something more understandable.

VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Distributed Agile: communication and common ground

Friday, January 29th, 2010

Cross-posted from Mathemagenic

With the holidays I somewhat took a break from blogging on our work on the distributed Agile case, but there are still quite a few things there that I wanted to share to hear what do you think. This one is a bit scary since I picked up some ideas from linguistics without having a proper reading of the work behind it, but at times this is the price to pay* for sitting between research and practice.

Communication and common groundSo, the picture on the right is a simplified version of the work of Herbert H. Clark:

According to Clark, in order for one person to understand another, there must be a “common ground” of knowledge between them. He shows how people infer this “common ground” from their past conversations, their immediate surroundings, and their shared cultural background. [This is from a back of Clark's book "Arenas of language use"]

In my terms: communication is enabled by the common ground between the participants and, in turn, contributes to building more common ground over time. Taking it a bit further, it is useful to distinguish between two components of the common ground:

  • information that the participants share (not necessarily explicitly, as it is often assumed that others know about X because of shared cultural, educational or work background) – I talk about shared knowledge and awareness of the bigger picture here
  • relationships between the participants – knowledge about each other and trust

Now to the distributed Agile teams. At a starting point there is a big distance between the team members:

  • different locations that make it difficult to rely on team-building and ad-hoc interaction that naturally happens in a co-located team;
  • time differences that in some cases provide only a small window of opportunity for interactions;
  • different cultures, organisations and levels of technical expertise create difficulties of getting a team “on one page” needed for seamless work.

Communication and common groundDistance between team members across different locations creates a vicious circle:

  • lack of common ground, the need for using technology and addressing time issues make communication challenging
  • challenges in communication make it difficult to overcome initial differences between teams, to build relationships and shared understanding of the bigger picture behind work

This picture is not that far from what you can learn by reading about the challenges of distributed Agile and solutions to address them, but hopefully it can help to address the problems in a more systematic way: spending time on establishing shared understanding and relationships in the team (especially in the beginning) and finding ways to shape communication processes and tools that not only allow to get things done, but also contribute to growing awareness and relationships over time.

My personal “hobby horse” is around the last point. From what we have seen, the communication in distributed teams often shrinks to purely functional and, compared to face-to-face settings, there is much less unstructured informal interactions – this works for getting the work done (at some level), but seriously limits the opportunities to build awareness of the bigger picture and relationships. Most of the solutions in respect to building the common ground in distributed Agile teams still rely on making sure that there are opportunities to visit each other, while there is a lot of space for a technology-mediated ways to do so next to the f2f.

* The ideas behind this post are grounded in insights coming from research on computer-mediated communication and distributed teams, but I need more time to read papers and to integrate research ideas in a systematic way. Hope to blog about it soon.

VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Comparing tools for cross-organizational collaboration

Friday, October 2nd, 2009

Since one of our customers would like to experiment with close collaboration across organizational boundaries (discussing information), I am currently comparing a series of tools. The table below represents my findings from testing the different alternatives. The information in the row “User friendliness” is subjective: it indicates how easy I could find my way around the tool. If you see information in the table that you consider to be not correct, please let me know or post a comment. (more…)

VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 4.5/5 (4 votes cast)
VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Project Buzz Tracker

Monday, August 17th, 2009

buzz tracker spinSteven Haveman, Industrial Design Student at the University of Twente completed his master’s graduation assignment within FWS on a study towards new ways of working for system architects. This post is a roundup of the results obtained in this research project. It shows the general findings and the findings regarding the concepts that were developed.

Steven’s research project has been a study towards new ways of working for system architects. System architects are responsible for the architecture of complex systems, like printers, MRI-scanners or radar systems. A series of interviews has been conducted with system architects at Océ, Philips and Thales to discuss concepts and obtain insights. This resulted in Project Buzz Tracker, a tool that couples activity information to project and workflow planning. Persons frequently give an update on their actions, thus showing the Buzz in a project. By observing this overview, the system architect can see concentrations or a lack of Buzz. These can be indications of problematic issues. Project Buzz Tracker will further strengthen team cohesion, especially if distant workers are involved.
(more…)

VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Social media products

Friday, July 24th, 2009

connecting-professionalsBased on our experiences with doing workshops to discuss the social media landscape and facilitating experiments to gain hands-on experience with these tools inside organizations, we are now developing three concrete FWS products around social media:
(more…)

VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Concept Game Online

Monday, July 6th, 2009

Within Future Workspaces, many concept ideas have been developed. The Concept Pool page on this website shows some of them. To inspire knowledge workers and to gain more insight into what concepts or concept areas appeal to them, we have created the Concept Game.

The physical version of the Concept Game can be played individually or in a workshop. It is also possible to play the Concept Game online.

Click here to start playing the Concept Game online. You will be asked to select your favourite and least favourite concept ideas. Please also tell us why you have selected these concepts and submit your choices. It will help us to focus our future plans and concept development.

The online version of the Concept Game was developed by Steven Haveman.

» Start the Concept Game

VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Dutch Tax Administration – Cross-organizational collaboration

Monday, July 6th, 2009

belastingdienstThis case is focussed on supporting the Dutch Tax Administration in collaborating with fiscal advising organizations as part of the Horizontal Monitoring initiative. The purpose of Horizontal Monitoring is to come to an effective method of monitoring by the Tax Administration, where trust and openness are key terms. In this pilot we explore the possibilities for innovative shared workspaces to make collaboration between the Tax Administration and a selection of fiscal advising organizations more effective and efficient, while stimulating openness and trust.

VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Virtual Worlds to support the Nomadic Worker

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

During the projectday one workshop was used to discuss the feasibility of virtual worlds for nomadic working. We see a growing group of nomadic workers, as work is not fixed solely to the office anymore. Increasingly people are working from home or the customer. Besides organizational problems, like planning of resources and projects also personal problems for nomadic workers arise. For example, keeping in touch and in sync with your colleauges and team members becomes more complex. One possible way to deal with these complexities is by using virtual worlds. This workshop was used to play with two virtual world demonstrations and to discuss the merits and drawbacks of this type of technology for nomadic workers.

The participants of the workshop were divided into two groups. One group played with the Virtual Media Office demonstration, prepared by Sefan Burgers from Ericsson. The second group played with the Second Life demonstration, prepared by Bart van den Hooff of the VU.

The result was a nice discussion from which the following elements struck me:

  • Staying in touch with colleagues can be facilitated using virtual worlds however currently it cannot complete replace face to face contact. For example, drinking coffee at a coffee corner is still very valuable. Maybe a good virtual coffee machine could be a way to go.
  • Choosing (remote) team members using virtual worlds could become more objective as politics and personal aspects play a lesser role.
  • Virtual worlds (including avatars) could become a intuitive graphical interface on top of the resources of a worker.
  • A lot of workers use tools with a lot of (unintuitive) features (e.g. email), virtual worlds could provide a intuitive interface that discloses all these features in a more natural way, after a learning curve has been taken.
  • Not all tasks of a knowledge worker may be suitable to perform in a virtual world (e.g. editing excel).
  • The more important decisions become, the more face to face contact is needed to also grasp indirect communication aspects (e.g. body language). Current virtual worlds are less suitable to grasp indirect communications and hence may be less suitable for very important/delicate decisions.

Mike drawing ideas

Mike from Jam visualized outcomes of the discussion. More of the results (also from the other workshops) can be found here.

VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 3.0/5 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Evaluating Twitter in our expertise group

Thursday, April 9th, 2009

Exactly two months ago our expertise group started an experiment with Twitter to see how it could facilitate knowledge sharing in between the monthly group meetings, and to see how it could improve social cohesion in the group.

 

Some characteristics of the expertise group

  • 14 researchers with a shared interest in how ICT affects work, life, and society;
  • they are working in the same research institute, but located over various parts of the building;
  • they frequently work elsewhere, for instance during client visits, workshops, conferences;
  • they are all working on several different projects at a time;
  • they are well acquainted with one another, though not co-working on a daily basis;
  • they share a feeling that cohesion and knowledge sharing in the group could be improved. 

(more…)

VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Evaluating Twitter in a distributed department

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

twitter-postIn the Future Workspaces Projective case a group of volunteers is experimenting with social media. The objective of this experiment is to assess whether social media can support knowledge sharing and social cohesion within a dispersed department. (more…)

VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.7.8_1020]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)