Managing Collaboration Effectively

617 views
559 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
617
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Managing Collaboration Effectively

  1. 1. Managing Collaboration Effectively <ul><li>Nick Bleech, Jericho Forum Board of Management </li></ul><ul><li>with help from Will Harwood, University of Kent </li></ul><ul><li>and Wikipedia! </li></ul><ul><li>Jericho Forum Annual Conference </li></ul><ul><li>22 April, 2008 </li></ul>A Jericho Forum ‘Work in Progress’
  2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Collaboration: inter-working between people, between systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective collaboration: advancing mutual objectives of the collaborators </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Managing collaboration effectively: fostering and maintaining the conditions for effective collaboration (e.g. trust and security) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Collaboration-Oriented Architecture (COA)’s ‘repositories’: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>COntrActs: capabilities - relationships - obligations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>REPutations: business events - outcomes - performance/ satisfaction of the COntrAct </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Collaboration viewed ‘memetically’ </li></ul>
  3. 3. Security without trust (request,claim,evidence) <ul><li>e.g. </li></ul><ul><li>A wants B to run a program P </li></ul><ul><li>B only wants to run programs that it believes are safe </li></ul><ul><ul><li>request - run this program P </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>claim C - it complies with your ‘safety policy’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>evidence - proof of P obeys C (testing = partial proof) </li></ul></ul>A B
  4. 4. What is trust? <ul><li>A ternary relation: A trusts B for action C </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Trust is in the same category of concepts as knowledge and belief </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To say I trust you is to assert a belief or knowledge about your actions. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Trust means that we believe a system maintains a property. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Trust involves Risk in that you are handing over control of your interests to another – it is used in place of evidence for behaviour. </li></ul>
  5. 5. What is trust? Transactional Trust Social Trust Traditional Rational-Legal Charismatic Positive Incentives Negative Incentives Authority/Control Decision to Trust “ Interpersonal Trust” - based on perceived qualities of the person/ thing being trusted “ Dispositional Distrust” - willingness generally to distrust Dependency “ Dispositional Trust” - willingness generally to trust “ System/Environment Trust” - in things/processes within which a trust relationship exists
  6. 6. What is trust? <ul><li>The context for trust decisions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Who to trust - identity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Why to trust - entitlements, rights, permissions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Experience/reputation, beliefs, and verifiability </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Security problems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What to disclose in order to achieve a desired trust decision (need to tell/ need to know)? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What not to disclose e.g. to preserve privacy/anonymity? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How to communicate and share knowledge in order to reach the trust decision? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How to capture and communicate experience to maintain trust? </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. What is trust? <ul><li>If your interests encapsulate my interests then I will trust you. </li></ul><ul><li>Encapsulation: The realisation of your interests necessarily leads to the realisation of my interests. </li></ul><ul><li>To trust you, I need to believe that both: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Your goals encapsulate my goals, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>You are capable of realising your goals (may invoke interpersonal and/or system/environment trust) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Trust is (should be) used when providing evidence is either not possible/feasible or very costly. </li></ul><ul><li>Trust is (should be) rational. </li></ul>
  8. 8. (Federated) Security with Trust A B request result <ul><li>Bilateral evidence/proofs of behaviour replaced by “identity proofs”, and “assertions” (claims) but trust in principals’ (agents’) behaviour still needed </li></ul><ul><li>A wants B to do C </li></ul><ul><li>claims – I am A , I am B , A is permitted C at B , … </li></ul><ul><li>evidence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>credentials for A , B </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>delegation certificate for C is permitted for A at B </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. ‘Traditional’ Trusted Third Party (TTP) <ul><li>Works well in financial setting </li></ul><ul><li>TTP is a Risk Absorber - really deferred trust </li></ul>A B Visa/MasterCard/…
  10. 10. Problem <ul><li>Tension: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>e-business network effect and power of ‘mass collaboration’ (unorganized collaboration) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Versus: the need to manage collaboration effectively </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mass collaboration models look attractive, but don’t seem to advance all parties’ objectives all of the time, e.g. trust and security </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Existing TTP constructs are problematic: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pooled liability, architectural inflexibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ We don’t use a TTP in the ‘real world’, so why here, why now?” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What practices, structures and incentives need to be resolved? </li></ul>
  11. 11. Why should I care? <ul><li>Real-world problem: many joint ventures, risk sharing partnerships etc. prove difficult to manage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Concepts, models, guidance needed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Collaborations can (should) be of arbitrary span and depth, so what hope for ‘e-collaborations’? </li></ul><ul><li>Mass-collaboration gaining popularity in the e-world: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social networking, wikis etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social networks complement rather than replace more traditional forms of interaction and social mechanisms (see Clay Shirky: Here Comes Everybody , 2008). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>So if we accept that trust and security are inherently multifaceted, social networks can’t provide all the trust and security we may ultimately need. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>COA can help </li></ul>
  12. 12. Genetic Viewpoint <ul><li>Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene popularized (and advanced) the gene-centric view of evolution: ‘bodies are the gene’s way of making more genes’ </li></ul><ul><li>Fundamental concepts here are replicators and vehicles (survival machines) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Replicators include nucleic acids notably DNA, which composes genes (base-pair sequences) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vehicles include people’s bodies, dogs and fruit flies </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Genes in Action <ul><li>Kin selection </li></ul>
  14. 14. Genes in Action <ul><li>Kin selection </li></ul>
  15. 15. Genes in Action <ul><li>Kin selection </li></ul>
  16. 16. Genes in Action <ul><li>If a gene “knows” that another body contains a copy of itself then it gets equal benefit from helping the other body reproduce ( inclusive fitness) </li></ul>
  17. 17. Genes in Action <ul><li>If a gene “knows” that another body contains a copy of itself then it gets equal benefit from helping the other body reproduce ( inclusive fitness) </li></ul>
  18. 18. Altruism among Selfish Genes <ul><li>Dawkins established that mutual trust among gene-copies can evolve thus advancing the goal of inclusive fitness </li></ul><ul><li>Thus genes can pursue non-selfish survival strategies that still advance selfish (to the gene) goals </li></ul><ul><li>The way to see this is by considering iterated prisoners’ dilemmas </li></ul>
  19. 19. Prisoners’ Dilemma Co-operate Defect Defect R , R S , T T , S P , P T > R > P > S A B <ul><li>Temptation </li></ul><ul><li>Reward </li></ul><ul><li>Punishment </li></ul><ul><li>Sucker </li></ul>Co-operate Nash Equilibrium, worst mutual outcome, but most logical in absence of trust
  20. 20. Iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma <ul><li>Robert Axelrod demonstrated that when various strategies compete in repeated games of the PD, the ‘tit for tat’ strategy produces the best overall outcome: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A: if B cooperated last time, cooperate this time; otherwise defect </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hence parties that can’t otherwise communicate can do so through their actions, and past actions create a ‘shadow of the future’: basis for trust </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dawkins postulates that many genes preprogram this strategy to maximise survival </li></ul></ul><ul><li>This also shows that interaction intensity tends to generate more trusting behaviour. </li></ul><ul><li>When thinking about trust and ‘trusting behaviour’, iterated PDs help to uncover rational incentives. </li></ul>
  21. 21. Memetic Viewpoint <ul><li>Dawkins extended the replicator/vehicle paradigm as a way to characterize evolutionary models of cultural information transfer </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In this viewpoint, memes stand for ideas, concepts, patterns of thought etc. located in the memory </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Memes may alternatively be thought of as observable cultural artifacts and behaviours </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some memeticists argue whether ideas are objectively observable within the memory </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In semiotics, signs need to be communicated (copied) and interpreted: memes gloss over the interpretation bit! </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Memes in Action <ul><li>Memes, like genes, are copied with variation and selection. Only some variants survive, so memes (and hence human cultures) evolve. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Unlike genetic (DNA) replication, meme replication has a high chance of inducing mutations. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Memes replicate by imitation, teaching and other methods, and compete for space in our memories and for a chance to be copied again. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Large groups of memes that are copied and passed on together are called co-adapted (mutually reinforcing) meme complexes, or memeplexes . E.g. religious ideas. </li></ul>
  23. 23. Memes Schmemes <ul><li>Is Memetics pseudo-science? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Advocates point to promising predictive capabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>E.g. Jon Whitty’s Memetic model of Project Management (PM): essentially self-serving, evolving and designing organizations for its own purpose. </li></ul><ul><li>So PM is a memeplex comprising the stories, rules and norms of project practice and experience. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizations believe projects evolve a sense of purpose through their mission statements and explicit goals , but these are often organization’s political compromises </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Similarly, projects are seen as superior problem-solving tools, but PM lore focuses mostly on why projects fail not why they succeed , which omits consideration of how else ‘success’ could be achieved . </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Collaboration as Memeplex? <ul><li>Jon Whitty’s analysis of PM generates insights, so what about collaboration? </li></ul><ul><li>The ‘memetic’ viewpoint seeks to identify a collaboration as a memeplex, and the elements that COA defines/implies as memes </li></ul><ul><li>In COA, we associate collaborations with </li></ul><ul><ul><li>COntrActs (a meme type) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>REputations (another meme type) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Insight: view all three as ‘first class citizens’ </li></ul><ul><li>Insight: the architecture should foster ‘inclusive fitness’ of its memes. </li></ul>
  25. 25. Towards Effective Collaboration <ul><li>A standard component of corporate strategy is organizational design (OD) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>As corporate strategy has evolved to embrace broader goals, social outcomes, and stakeholder values, OD has evolved too. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Contemporary trends include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reinventing hierarchies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project-oriented OD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Networks (small-world networks, a.k.a. clusters) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Guilds (Eli Lilly example) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>All these approaches seek to maximize effective collaboration </li></ul>
  26. 26. New OD - strengths/weaknesses Type Strength Weakness Remarks Eli Lilly model Long term cohesion? Combines features of networks and adhocracies Guilds ‘ Small world’ networks improve on ‘pure’ networks Can be swamped by interactions, trust may be shallow Flexible, durable, multi-organizational Networks Cf. Jon Whitty critique Inappropriate for sustaining activities Flexible to focus on clear goals over finite durations Project-oriented A.k.a. ‘adhocracies’ Little control Expertise prized, e.g. research teams, jazz bands Reinventing hierarchies
  27. 27. COA’s first class citizens <ul><li>Definition: in business terms a ‘repository’ is simply a persistent and dependable record of facts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>COntrAct repository models ‘static’ bases for collaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>REputation repository models ‘dynamic’ collaboration execution performance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Implementation expected to be via ‘repository as a service’ (RaaS), so capable of existing ‘in the cloud’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In this model, the ‘TTP as intermediary’ vs. ‘we don’t do business through TTPs’ tension is transformed. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tracking risk, reputation and the satisfaction of obligations goes ‘into the cloud’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TTP (now a ‘RaaS provider’) does not transfer or absorb counterparty risk/ liability </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. Benefits <ul><li>Today, risk/reputation scores, audit trails etc., are: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>After the fact, low-level, un-normalized </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Duplicated across enterprise architectures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bandwidth consuming if transmitted </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subvertable </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In contrast, the repository model seeks to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Unify this metadata </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In a normalized fashion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Suitable for scalable multiparty access/update </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>With denormalization required only </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>a) as by-product of implementation constraints, or </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>b) where one party needs to place greater trust in a local copy of repository data than another. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  29. 29. Implications <ul><li>Memetic view of collaboration allows collaborations to become ‘first-class citizens’: informs business architecture </li></ul><ul><li>Viewed ‘memetically’: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A transaction is the vehicle for a COntrAct replicator </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A business outcome (potentially, risk impact) is the vehicle for a REPutation replicator </li></ul></ul><ul><li>This requires changes in both the ‘business mindset’ and architectural assumptions about: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Where to put security metadata e.g. ‘classifications’ sit within COntrActs as a view of risk appetite </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relationships between security metadata, other metadata and transactional information flows </li></ul></ul>
  30. 30. ‘Bottom Line’ <ul><li>We postulate that </li></ul><ul><ul><li>appropriate collaborative team OD, design of incentives for more-or-less altruistically motivated team members, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>architectural underpinning for team working (using COA) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>… together maximise effective, e-enabled collaboration. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This requires validation. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>COA foundations (inherently secure communications, endpoint security etc.,) are necessary building blocks before RaaS can be reliably implemented. </li></ul></ul>
  31. 31. Next Steps <ul><li>‘ Managing Collaboration Effectively’ open discussion group </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This Summer, probably at London Business School (LBS) - expressions of interest sought </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OD implications of guild models </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaboration as a tool for ‘wicked’ problem-solving </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaboration effectiveness </li></ul></ul><ul><li>COA development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Join Jericho Forum to participate! </li></ul></ul>
  32. 32. Q&A <ul><li>Thanks! </li></ul><ul><li>Contact: n.bleech@opengroup.org </li></ul>

×