Social software and KM phase 2 – individuals, personality and wiki use 4 th working group meeting – 7 December 2007

Meeting objectives Agree programme, actions and responsibilities needed to complete the project: Project findings Production of project report (conference paper) Production of guidance Conference presentation Phase 3?

Agree programme, actions and responsibilities needed to complete the project:

Project findings

Production of project report (conference paper)

Production of guidance

Conference presentation

Phase 3?

Agenda 0930 Meeting objectives 0945 Project recap and emerging findings 1015 Guidance – proposed framework 1100 Break 1130 Guidance – discussion 1200 Project report 1215 Conference presentation 1245 Programme for completing Phase 2 (if time… discussion about Phase 3) 1300 Lunch

0930 Meeting objectives

0945 Project recap and emerging findings

1015 Guidance – proposed framework

1100 Break

1130 Guidance – discussion

1200 Project report

1215 Conference presentation

1245 Programme for completing Phase 2

(if time… discussion about Phase 3)

1300 Lunch

Recap – Phase 1

Recap – Phase 2 Agreed to develop individual axis of matrix. Axis refers to motivation and capability to collaborate and motivation to preserve existing organisational structures. Simplification needed – too many variables.

Agreed to develop individual axis of matrix.

Axis refers to motivation and capability to collaborate and motivation to preserve existing organisational structures.

Simplification needed – too many variables.

Recap – Phase 2 Using literature, reflection, discussion and self-assessment we have explored our use of the project wiki and: personality (16PF) Belbin team roles emotional intelligence motivation (based on needs theories) how we perceive the wiki We have identified two similar frameworks for categorising (wiki) users – and applied them to ourselves: commentor/adder/synthsiser (wiki use survey, Majchrzak et al) the 4 Cs of participation (Derek’s blog) We have also analysed our contribution levels using Confluence activity data

Using literature, reflection, discussion and self-assessment we have explored our use of the project wiki and:

personality (16PF)

Belbin team roles

emotional intelligence

motivation (based on needs theories)

how we perceive the wiki

We have identified two similar frameworks for categorising (wiki) users – and applied them to ourselves:

commentor/adder/synthsiser (wiki use survey, Majchrzak et al)

the 4 Cs of participation (Derek’s blog)

We have also analysed our contribution levels using Confluence activity data

Findings – use of wiki Reading Commenting Adding Synthesising High Medium Low/none Level of contribution (quantity)

Findings – long tail / power law of participation

Findings – use of wiki and 16PF/EI information Reading Commenting Adding Synthesising High Medium Low/none Level of contribution (quantity)

Emerging messages… Group members who contribute a lot are more likely to be adders and synthesisers than readers or commenters Group members who contribute a lot are more likely to share their personality/EI scores! Compared with the group as a whole, high contribution synthesisers might be more independent, tough-minded, conscientious and unorthodox High level contributors can be anything from very introvert to very extravert Individuals have different motivators and ‘inhibitors’ and different ideas of ‘what the wiki is’ – need to look for any patterns between these and wiki use

Group members who contribute a lot are more likely to be adders and synthesisers than readers or commenters

Group members who contribute a lot are more likely to share their personality/EI scores!

Compared with the group as a whole, high contribution synthesisers might be more independent, tough-minded, conscientious and unorthodox

High level contributors can be anything from very introvert to very extravert

Individuals have different motivators and ‘inhibitors’ and different ideas of ‘what the wiki is’ – need to look for any patterns between these and wiki use

Guidance – proposed framework Use our own (partially developed) version of the 4 Cs framework to pull together all the strands we have explored. Populate the framework with concepts from the literature and evidence from the project (such as our reflections).

Use our own (partially developed) version of the 4 Cs framework to pull together all the strands we have explored.

Populate the framework with concepts from the literature and evidence from the project (such as our reflections).

Guidance framework – things we like about the 4 Cs model It includes motivation, behaviours and outcomes The participation types map directly onto the types identified in the survey of wiki users we looked at in Phase 1 (the types are commenter, adder and synthesiser)

It includes motivation, behaviours and outcomes

The participation types map directly onto the types identified in the survey of wiki users we looked at in Phase 1 (the types are commenter, adder and synthesiser)

Guidance framework – things we don’t like about the 4 Cs model It's too positive - only good things can happen It doesn't include 'inhibitors' - factors that work against motivation to participate It only includes types that make positive contributions - there isn't a type for people who resist participation (or for people who make negative contributions such as vandalism) The way it is presented implies a hierarchy in which 'commentator' is better than 'contributor' etc. The way it is presented implies that everyone progresses from consumer to commentor to contributor to commentator… this is misleading, some people might always be consumers or commentors or contributors

It's too positive - only good things can happen

It doesn't include 'inhibitors' - factors that work against motivation to participate

It only includes types that make positive contributions - there isn't a type for people who resist participation (or for people who make negative contributions such as vandalism)

The way it is presented implies a hierarchy in which 'commentator' is better than 'contributor' etc.

The way it is presented implies that everyone progresses from consumer to commentor to contributor to commentator… this is misleading, some people might always be consumers or commentors or contributors

Developments already agreed… Remove implied hierarchy (‘cogs’ graphic?). Add ‘inhibitors’ (things that work against motivation). Include something about why individuals change type (Pete’s diagram – all transitions are possible) and how to influence these changes.

Remove implied hierarchy (‘cogs’ graphic?).

Add ‘inhibitors’ (things that work against motivation).

Include something about why individuals change type (Pete’s diagram – all transitions are possible) and how to influence these changes.

Proposed additional developments Make it clear that the framework is a snapshot of users of a specific application – an individual might be a synthesiser/commentator in one application and a consumer in another. Make it clear that a user can be of one or more types, e.g. a commenter and an adder/contributor. Some permutations are more desirable than others – an adder/contributor should probably also be a consumer, a synthesiser/commentator could probably be that alone (pure process facilitation). Make it clear that the purpose of influencing changes (between types) is to improve the effectiveness of collaboration by removing barriers so that people can be what they want to be. As opposed to forcing people into roles they don’t want.

Make it clear that the framework is a snapshot of users of a specific application – an individual might be a synthesiser/commentator in one application and a consumer in another.

Make it clear that a user can be of one or more types, e.g. a commenter and an adder/contributor. Some permutations are more desirable than others – an adder/contributor should probably also be a consumer, a synthesiser/commentator could probably be that alone (pure process facilitation).

Make it clear that the purpose of influencing changes (between types) is to improve the effectiveness of collaboration by removing barriers so that people can be what they want to be. As opposed to forcing people into roles they don’t want.

Proposed additional developments Change the labels and don’t force them all to begin with the same letter. Add a new type to represent ‘resistors’ – potential users who don’t access the application at all. Could include vandals – or should this be a separate type? Make the ‘motivation’ descriptions more distinct from ‘behaviours’ by creating a pick list based on the literature (needs theories and social software research). Repeat the above for ‘inhibitors’. Allow ‘inhibitors’ to span more than one type.

Change the labels and don’t force them all to begin with the same letter.

Add a new type to represent ‘resistors’ – potential users who don’t access the application at all. Could include vandals – or should this be a separate type?

Make the ‘motivation’ descriptions more distinct from ‘behaviours’ by creating a pick list based on the literature (needs theories and social software research).

Repeat the above for ‘inhibitors’.

Allow ‘inhibitors’ to span more than one type.

Proposed additional developments Include positive and negative outcomes. Include personal and group outcomes.

Include positive and negative outcomes.

Include personal and group outcomes.

What it might look like… Commenters Behaviours Motivation Inhibitors Outcomes Consumers Behaviours Motivation Inhibitors Outcomes Synthesisers Behaviours Motivation Inhibitors Outcomes Adders Behaviours Motivation Inhibitors Outcomes Resistors Behaviours Motivation Inhibitors Outcomes Vanadals Behaviours Motivation Inhibitors Outcomes

Commenters Behaviours Responding to other users’ contributions Seeking clarification Making suggestions Editing (grammar and punctuation) Motivation {need to generate pick list} Personal outcomes increased confidence affirmation or rejection of thinking Group outcomes greater clarification might be perceived as irritating

Behaviours

Responding to other users’ contributions

Seeking clarification

Making suggestions

Editing (grammar and punctuation)

Motivation

{need to generate pick list}

Personal outcomes

increased confidence

affirmation or rejection of thinking

Group outcomes

greater clarification

might be perceived as irritating

Inhibitors and transitions Inhibitors are the factors that prevent people from being a consumer, commenter, adder or synthesise Also the factors that prevent people from being resistors or vandals? Removing inhibitors enables transistions between types Should inhibitors be shown in transitions diagram or in main framework?

Inhibitors are the factors that prevent people from being a consumer, commenter, adder or synthesise

Also the factors that prevent people from being resistors or vandals?

Removing inhibitors enables transistions between types

Should inhibitors be shown in transitions diagram or in main framework?

Transitions

For discussion… What do we say about personality and team roles? What do we say about the desired mix of types in a group?

What do we say about personality and team roles?

What do we say about the desired mix of types in a group?

Production of the guidance Pete and Judy to lead Develop on wiki so all can contribute Print or wiki? Aim for complete draft by end December Must be finalised by mid-January

Pete and Judy to lead

Develop on wiki so all can contribute

Print or wiki?

Aim for complete draft by end December

Must be finalised by mid-January

Project report Judy to lead – authors will be Judy, Pete and Jeni Report will include: background (link to Phase 1) literature review methods findings guidance framework implications for knowledge managers Complete draft in early January for all to comment Must be complete mid-January

Judy to lead – authors will be Judy, Pete and Jeni

Report will include:

background (link to Phase 1)

literature review

methods

findings

guidance framework

implications for knowledge managers

Complete draft in early January for all to comment

Must be complete mid-January

Conference presentation Judy and Pete on conference programme Ideas?

Judy and Pete on conference programme

Ideas?

Agenda 0930 Meeting objectives 0945 Project recap and emerging findings 1015 Guidance – proposed framework 1100 Break 1130 Guidance – discussion 1200 Project report 1215 Conference presentation 1245 Programme for completing Phase 2 (if time… discussion about Phase 3) 1300 Lunch

0930 Meeting objectives

0945 Project recap and emerging findings

1015 Guidance – proposed framework

1100 Break

1130 Guidance – discussion

1200 Project report

1215 Conference presentation

1245 Programme for completing Phase 2

(if time… discussion about Phase 3)

1300 Lunch