Managing Collaboration Effectively
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

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: