A collaboration is a collaboration is a collaboration

2,025 views

Published on

GROUP 2007 presentation about varieties of collaboration.

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,025
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
42
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A collaboration is a collaboration is a collaboration

  1. 1. A collaboration is a collaboration is a collaboration. Not. GROUP 2007 Sanibel Island, Florida November 4, 2007 John C. Thomas IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
  2. 2. Outline <ul><li>Why Games? </li></ul><ul><li>Potential Components of Collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>A Collaboration Metaphor </li></ul><ul><li>Situational Factors that influence Collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Toward a Hierarchy of Collaboration Skills </li></ul><ul><li>Some on-going on-line Game Research </li></ul>
  3. 4. Games focus learning <ul><li>Often “Safer” environment that what it simulates </li></ul><ul><li>Cleaner separation of causal variables </li></ul><ul><li>Faster feedback </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunity to take on leadership roles sooner </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunity for many more learning “cycles” than possible in real life </li></ul>
  4. 5. For example: <ul><li>War </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not likely to command for years </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Victory often results from many factors other than strategy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scores of engagements, at most </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feedback may not be clear </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feedback may not come for years </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Chess </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can command immediately </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Victory depends on strategy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Thousands of games possible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feedback clearer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feedback comes in hours </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>State is visible </li></ul></ul>
  5. 6. On-line games allow more realism… <ul><li>Is this always a “good” thing? </li></ul><ul><li>What is (are) the sweet spots of reality versus abstraction? </li></ul><ul><li>Does it vary over time? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In aviation, some have suggested a sequence of simulators from the abstract to the ever more realistic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the case for teaching to collaborate? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Or better, collaborate(1), collaborate(2), collaborate (3) etc. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the transfer of training from simulations to reality? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Problem solving skills are often applied on the basis of surface similarity. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is a game that is “mostly like” real battle a more dangerous training environment than chess (because people are more likely to think it is “just like” real battle? </li></ul></ul>
  6. 7. Hypothesis: <ul><li>To address such questions, we must first define much more precisely what is meant by varieties of collaboration skills. </li></ul>
  7. 8. Various “theories” of intelligence <ul><li>General Intelligence (1) </li></ul><ul><li>Verbal vs. Non-verbal (2) </li></ul><ul><li>Fluid vs. Crystallized (2) </li></ul><ul><li>Gardner: Linguistic, Logical/Math, Musical, Bodily/kinesthetic, Spatial, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal </li></ul><ul><li>Subtypes of Emotional Intelligence: E.g., </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship management </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Guilford: Product (6) x Operation (5) x Content (4) = (120) </li></ul><ul><li>Skinner: Individually learned habits (many 1000’s) </li></ul><ul><li>What is the case with collaboration? </li></ul>
  8. 9. Collaboration Metaphor:
  9. 10. Collaboration Metaphor: PROGRESS
  10. 11. Collaboration Metaphor: PROGRESS Collaboration minimizes distance
  11. 12. Collaboration Metaphor: PROGRESS Collaboration minimizes distance Obstacles Obstacles
  12. 13. Useful Kinds of Comments <ul><li>Stators </li></ul><ul><ul><li>State of the environment: “Complex topic.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Internal State: “I’m tired.” “I’m confused.” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Turnors: “OK. We’ve talked that one to death. Now, let’s consider…” </li></ul><ul><li>Rators: “Yeah, yeah, I get it.” vs. “Huh? What do you mean?” </li></ul>
  13. 14. In collaborative “games” rules often limit communication <ul><li>In bridge, you may only “bid;” not comment on your hand, grimace, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>In golf, you cannot gain or give advice from anyone except your playing partner or caddy. </li></ul><ul><li>In baseball, you can hoot at the other team all you like, but “signals” are used to communicate with teammates hopefully without the other side decoding them. </li></ul><ul><li>In gymnastics, you may “cheer” your team-mates but giving useful advice “mid-move” is typically impractical. </li></ul><ul><li>In charades and password, the whole point of the game is to communicate effectively despite heavy restrictions. </li></ul><ul><li>In American Football, there are pre-planned plays, audibles called at the line of scrimmage and instantaneous reactions. </li></ul>
  14. 15. Effective collaboration does not just depend on skills but also on the environmental constraints <ul><li>Are collaborators sharing the same general stimulus situation (visually, aurally, kinesthetically etc.)? </li></ul><ul><li>Are collaborators sharing the fine detail of the situation? </li></ul><ul><li>Is finely coordinated timing required? </li></ul><ul><li>Is communication limited by rules, by noise, by intentional opponent misdirection, etc.? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the nature of the game-theoretic situation? Individual goals? Sub-group goals? </li></ul><ul><li>How is the type of interaction and collaboration structured by limited resources? For instance, in many games, there are special tokens. </li></ul>
  15. 16. Many Varieties of Token Interaction <ul><li>Football, soccer, basketball, hockey: One ball and scoring typically requires “possession” </li></ul><ul><li>In croquet, each player has their own ball, but the strategy largely has to do with interactions among them. In chess, each player moves their own pieces, but the strategy largely has to do with interactions. </li></ul><ul><li>In golf, each player has their own ball, and they are not supposed to interact at all. </li></ul><ul><li>In charades, password, monopoly for instance, there is the abstract notion of “turn” and many actions can only be taken when it is your “turn.” </li></ul><ul><li>In monopoly, for instance, there are a variety of kinds of tokens. Each player has a “piece” which only they use. The use of the dice is associated with a turn. Deeds may only be owned by one at a time but may change hands and are distinctive. Money is fungible. Space on the board may be occupied by multiple “pieces.” </li></ul>
  16. 17. Team “Competitive” Sports <ul><li>@ 1955 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not enough people for “real” game </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No “official” field </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hence, kids agreed on rule changes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Kids agreed on schedule </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Kids (eventually) resolved disputes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>@ 2005 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Organized teams with official numbers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Played on official fields </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Play by the rules </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Schedule is decided authoritatively and parents ensure kids are there on time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Officials resolve disputes </li></ul></ul>What kinds of collaboration are learned? How transferable?
  17. 18. Varieties of Collaboration “Skills” <ul><li>Prior to a given situation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to make good strategies, tactics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and motivations of others </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to use knowledge of others to structure strategies, tactics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to communicate (listen as well as talk/write) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Negotiation and consensus building </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Yetton and Vroom normative model </li></ul></ul><ul><li>During situation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to observe </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to react </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to communicate </li></ul></ul><ul><li>After a situation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to recall </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to analyze and draw lessons learned </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to build consensus </li></ul></ul>
  18. 19. Collaboration “Skills” Impacted by “Emotional Intelligence” <ul><li>Prior to a given situation: Bias, Rigidity, Power Trips, Shyness, Over-optimism (reality duration typically 2X planned duration) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to make good strategies, tactics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to communicate (listen as well as talk/write) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Negotiation and consensus building </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Yetton and Vroom normative model </li></ul></ul><ul><li>During situation: Bias, Rigidity (observations of teen-age boys in darts game; Bean in Ender’s Game series), Shyness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to observe </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to react </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to communicate </li></ul></ul><ul><li>After a situation: Bias, Rigidity, CYA, Shyness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to recall </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to analyze and draw lessons learned </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Being able to build consensus </li></ul></ul>
  19. 20. Team-building “exercises” <ul><li>Ropes Course: teaches “trust” among team members </li></ul><ul><li>How much transfer to work situations? </li></ul><ul><li>What exactly is learned? </li></ul><ul><li>How practical is it? </li></ul><ul><li>What are alternatives? </li></ul>
  20. 21. Collaboratively Building Path
  21. 22. Collaboratively Building Tower
  22. 23. Building Castles: Designers & Implementers
  23. 24. Debriefing Near “Clubhouse”
  24. 25. Potential Issues… <ul><li>What is appropriate “trust” in IBM? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To learn to trust team members? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To learn to discriminate who and when to trust and under what conditions? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How much does person X “trust” leaders and group member Y depending on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Formal position of X and Y </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge of actual domain of X and Y </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Skill in Second Life of X and Y </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Good well-reasoned decisions of X and Y </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Diagnosis? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A skilled golf instructor, psychotherapist, financial advisor, real estate agent --- first tries to understand your current state and your goals. Then, makes some observations and tries to co-formulate a plan for how to achieve goals. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Are we trying to teach this particular Team to collaborate better or are we trying to teach the members of this team to be better Collaborators (and in what senses)? </li></ul>
  25. 26. References <ul><li>Carroll, J.M. and Thomas, J.C. (1988). Fun. SIGCHI Bulletin , 20(3) . </li></ul><ul><li>Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed. Basic Books. </li></ul><ul><li>Guilford, J. P. (1967), The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. </li></ul><ul><li>Orson Scott Card, (1991). Ender’s Game. Tor/Forge </li></ul><ul><li>Jens Riegelsberger, M. Angela Sasse & John D. McCarthy (in press). Trust in Mediated Interactions. In Katelyn McKenna, Tom Postmes, Ulf Reips , Adam N. Joinson (Eds.) Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology . Oxford: Oxford University Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Jens Riegelsberger & Asimina Vasalou (2007). Trust 2.1 - Advancing the Trust Debate . Extended Abstracts of CHI 2007, San Jose, CA, US, April 28 - May 3. </li></ul><ul><li>Stuart, R. and Thomas, J.C. (1991). Virtual Reality In Education. Multimedia Review , 2 (2) , pp. 17-27. </li></ul><ul><li>Thomas, J. C., Kellogg, W.A., and Erickson, T. (2001) The Knowledge Management puzzle: Human and social factors in knowledge management. IBM Systems Journal, 40 (4), 863-884. Available on-line at http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj40-4.html </li></ul><ul><li>Thomas, J. C. (2001). An HCI Agenda for the Next Millennium: Emergent Global Intelligence. In R. Earnshaw, R. Guedj, A. van Dam, and J. Vince (Eds.), Frontiers of human-centered computing, online communities, and virtual environments . London: Springer-Verlag. </li></ul><ul><li>Thomas, J. C. (1999) Narrative technology and the new millennium. Knowledge Management Journal , 2 (9), 14-17. </li></ul><ul><li>Thomas, J.C. (1978). A design-interpretation analysis of natural English. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies , 10 , pp. 651-668. </li></ul><ul><li>Thomas, J.C. and Carroll, J. (1978). The psychological study of design. Design Studies, 1 (1) , pp. 5-11. </li></ul><ul><li>U. S. Marine Corps (1994), Warfighting: The U.S. Marine Corps Book of Strategy . New York: Currency Doubleday. </li></ul><ul><li>Vroom, V.H. & Yetton, P.W. (1976). Leadership and decision making. Pitts, PA: Pitt Paperbacks. </li></ul>

×