• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Managing Collaboration Effectively

Managing Collaboration Effectively






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Managing Collaboration Effectively Managing Collaboration Effectively Presentation Transcript

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