43 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. “NextNow Collaboratory is an interesting example of a new kind of collective intelligence: an Internet-enabled, portable social network, easily transferable from one social cause to another.”

      Sense Collective's TotemSDK brings together tools, protocols, platform integrations and best practices for extending collective intelligence beyond our current capabilities. A number of cryptographic primitives have emerged which support the amazing work of projects like the NextNow Collaboratory in exciting ways that help to upgrade the general purpose social computing substrate which make tools like hypothes.is so valuable.

  2. Jan 2019
    1. Experimentation, the third affordance, refers to theuse of technology to encourage participants to try outnovel ideas.

      Definition of experimentation.

      Describes the use of comment/feedback boxes, ratings, polls, etc. to generate ideas for new coordination workflows, design ideas, workarounds, etc.

    2. Recombinability refers to forms of technology-enabled action where individual contributors build oneach others’ contributions.

      Definition of recombinability.

      Cites Lessig in describing recombinability "as both a technology design issue and a community governance principle" for reusing/remixing/recombining knowledge

    3. Reviewability refers to the enactment of technology-enabled new forms of working in which participantsare better able to view and manage the content offront and back narratives over time (West and Lakhani2008). By allowing participants to easily and collab-oratively review a range of ideas, technology-affordedreviewability helps the community respond to tensionsin disembodied ideas, because the reviews can provideimportant contextual information for building on others’ideas.

      Definition of reviewability.

      Faraj et al offer the example of Wikipedia edit log to track changes.

    4. Technology platforms used by OCs can providea number of affordances for knowledge collabora-tion, three of which we mention here: reviewability,recombinability, and experimentation. These affordancesevolve as new participants provide new ways to use thetechnologies, new social norms are developed around thetechnology affordances, and new needs for fresh affor-dances are identified.

      Ways that technology affordances can influence/motivate change in social coordination practices.

    5. Given the fluid nature of OCsand their rapidly evolving technology platforms, and inline with calls to avoid dualistic thinking about tech-nology (Leonardi and Barley 2008, Markus and Silver2008, Orlikowski and Scott 2008), we suggest technol-ogy affordance as a generative response, one that viewstechnology, action, and roles as emergent, inseparable,and coevolving. Technology affordances offer a relationalperspective on human action, where neither the technol-ogy nor the actor is dominant in the sense that the tech-nology does not define what is possible for the actor todo, nor is the actor free from the limitations of the tech-nological environment. Instead, possibilities for actionemerge from the reciprocal interaction between actor andartifact (Gibson 1979, Zammuto et al. 2007). Thus, anaffordance perspective focuses on the organizing actionsthat are afforded by technology artifacts.

      Interesting perspective on how technology affordances are a generative response to coordination tensions.

    6. third response to manage tensions is to promoteknowledge collaboration by enacting dynamic bound-aries. In social sciences, although boundaries divide anddisintegrate collectives, they also coordinate and inte-grate social action (Bowker and Star 1999, Lamont andMolnár 2002). Fluidity brings the need for flexible andpermeable boundaries, but it is not only the propertiesof the boundaries but also their dynamicity that helpmanage tensions.

      Cites Bowker and Star

      Good examples of how boundaries co-evolve and take on new meanings follow this paragraph.

    7. We have observed in OCs that no single narrative isable to keep participants informed about the current stateof the OC with respect to each tension. These commu-nities seem to develop two different types of narratives.Borrowing from Goffman (1959), we label the two nar-ratives the “front” and the “back” narratives.

      Cites Goffman and the performative vs invisible aspects of social coordination work.

    8. Based on our collective research on to date, we haveidentified that as tensions ebb and flow, OCs use (or,more precisely, participants engage in) any of the fourtypes of responses that seem to help the OC be gen-erative. The first generative response is labeledEngen-dering Roles in the Moment. In this response, membersenact specific roles that help turn the potentially negativeconsequences of a tension into positive consequences.The second generative response is labeledChannelingParticipation. In this response, members create a nar-rative that helps keep fluid participants informed ofthe state of the knowledge, with this narrative havinga necessary duality between a front narrative for gen-eral public consumption and a back narrative to airthe differences and emotions created by the tensions.The third generative response is labeledDynamicallyChanging Boundaries. In this response, OCs changetheir boundaries in ways that discourage or encouragecertain resources into and out of the communities at cer-tain times, depending on the nature of the tension. Thefourth generative response is labeledEvolving Technol-ogy Affordances. In this response, OCs iteratively evolvetheir technologies in use in ways that are embedded by,and become embedded into, iteratively enhanced socialnorms. These iterations help the OC to socially and tech-nically automate responses to tensions so that the com-munity does not unravel.

      Productive responses to experienced tensions.

      Evokes boundary objects (dynamically changing boundaries) and design affordances/heuristics (evolving technology affordances)

    9. Tension 5: Positive and Negative Consequences ofTemporary ConvergenceThe classic models of knowledge collaboration in groupsgive particular weight to the need for convergence. Con-vergence around a single goal, direction, criterion, pro-cess, or solution helps counterbalance the forces ofdivergence, allowing diverse ideas to be framed, ana-lyzed, and coalesced into a single solution (Couger 1996,Isaksen and Treffinger 1985, Osborn 1953, Woodmanet al. 1993). In fluid OCs, convergence is still likelyto exist during knowledge collaboration, but the conver-gence is likely to be temporary and incomplete, oftenimplicit, and is situated among subsets of actors in thecommunity rather than the entire community.

      Positive consequences: The temporary nature can advance creative uses of the knowledge without hewing to structures, norms or histories of online collaboration.

      Negative consequences: Lack of P2P feedback may lead to withdrawal from the group. Pace of knowledge building can be slow and frustrating due to temporary, fleeting convergence dynamics of the group.

    10. ension 2: Positive and Negative Consequencesof TimeA second tension is between the positive and negativeconsequences of the time that people spend contribut-ing to the OC. Knowledge collaboration requires thatindividuals spend time contributing to the OC’s virtualworkspace (Fleming and Waguespack 2007, Lakhani andvon Hippel 2003, Rafaeli and Ariel 2008). Time has apositive consequence for knowledge collaboration. Themore time people spend evolving others’ contributedideas and responding to others’ comments on thoseideas, the more the ideas can evolve

      Positive consequences: Attention helps to advance the reuse/remix/recombination of knowledge

      Negative consequences: "Old-timers" crowd out newcomers

      Tension can lead to "unpredictable fluctuations in the collaborative process" such as labor shortages, lack of fresh ideas, in-balance between positive/negative consequences that catalyzes healthy fluidity

      Need to consider other possibilities for time/temporal consequences. These examples seem lacking.

    11. We argue that it is the fluidity, the tensions that flu-idity creates, and the dynamics in how the OC respondsto these tensions that make knowledge collaboration inOCs fundamentally different from knowledge collabora-tion in teams or other traditional organization structures.

      Faraj et al identify 5 tensions that have received little attention in the literature (doesn't mean these are the only tensions):

      passion, time, socially ambiguous identities, social disembodiment of ideas, and temporary convergence.

    12. As fluctuations in resource endowments arise overtime because of the fluidity in the OC, these fluctua-tions in resources create fluctuations in tensions, makingsimple structural tactics for managing tensions such ascross-functional teams or divergent opinions (Sheremata2000) inadequate for fostering knowledge collaboration.As complex as these tension fluctuations are for the com-munity, it is precisely these tensions that provide thecatalyst for knowledge collaboration. Communities thatthen respond to these tensions generatively (rather thanin restrictive ways) will be able to realize this potential.Thus, it is not the simple presence of resources that fos-ter knowledge collaboration, but rather the presence ofongoing dynamic tensions within the OC that spur thecollaboration. We describe these tensions in the follow-ing section

      Tension as a catalyst for knowledge work/collaboration

    13. Fluidity requires us to look at the dynamics—i.e., thecontinuous and rapid changes in resources—rather thanthe presence or the structural form of the resources.Resources may flow from outside the OC (e.g., pas-sion) or be internally generated (e.g., convergence), sub-sequently influencing and influenced by action (Feldman2004). Resources come with the baggage of having bothpositive and negative consequences for knowledge col-laboration, creating a tension within the community inhow to manage the positive and negative consequencesin a manner similar to the one faced by ambidextrousorganizations (O’Reilly and Tushman 2004).

      Fluidity vs material resources

    14. However, failure to examine the critical roleof even the inactive participants in the functioning of thecommunity is to ignore that passive (and invisible) par-ticipation may be a step toward greater participation, aswhen individuals use passivity as a way to learn aboutthe collective in a form of peripheral legitimate partici-pation (Lave and Wenger 1991, Yeow et al. 2006).

      Evokes LPP

    15. Fluidity recognizes the highly flexible or permeableboundaries of OCs, where it is hard to figure out whois in the community and who is outside (Preece et al.2004) at any point in time, let alone over time. Theyare adaptive in that they change as the attention, actions,and interests of the collective of participants change overtime. Many individuals in an OC are at various stagesof exit and entry that change fluidly over time.

      Evokes boundary objects and boundary infrastructures.

    16. We argue that fluid-ity is a fundamental characteristic of OCs that makesknowledge collaboration in such settings possible. Assimply depicted in Figure 1, we envision OCs as fluidorganizational objects that are simultaneously morphingand yet retaining a recognizable shape (de Laet and Mol2000, Law 2002, Mol and Law 1994).

      Definition of fluidity: "Fluid OCs are ones where boundaries, norms, participants, artifacts, interactions, and foci continually change over time..."

      Faraj et al argue that OCs extend the definition of fluid objects in the existing literature.

    17. a growing consensus on factors that moti-vate people to make contributions to these communities,including motivational factors based on self-interest (e.g.,Lakhani and von Hippel 2003, Lerner and Tirole 2002,von Hippel and von Krogh 2003), identity (Bagozzi andDholakia 2006, Blanchard and Markus 2004, Ma andAgarwal 2007, Ren et al. 2007, Stewart and Gosain2006), social capital (Nambisan and Baron 2010; Waskoand Faraj 2000, 2005; Wasko et al. 2009), and socialexchange (Faraj and Johnson 2011).

      Motivations include: self-interest, identity, social capital, and social exchange, per org studies researchers.

      Strange that Benkler, Kittur, Kraut and others' work is not cited here.

    18. For instance, knowledge collaboration in OCscan occur without the structural mechanisms tradition-ally associated with knowledge collaboration in orga-nizational teams: stable membership, convergence afterdivergence, repeated people-to-people interactions, goal-sharing, and feelings of interdependence among groupmembers (Boland et al. 1994, Carlile 2002, Dougherty1992, Schrage 1995, Tsoukas 2009).

      Differences between offline and online knowledge work

      Online communities operate with fewer constraints from "social conventions, ownership, and hierarchies." Further, the ability to remix/reuse/recombine information into new, innovative forms of knowledge are easier to generate through collaborative technologies and ICT.

    19. Knowledge collaboration is defined broadly as thesharing, transfer, accumulation, transformation, andcocreation of knowledge. In an OC, knowledge collab-oration involves individual acts of offering knowledgeto others as well as adding to, recombining, modify-ing, and integrating knowledge that others have con-tributed. Knowledge collaboration is a critical elementof the sustainability of OCs as individuals share andcombine their knowledge in ways that benefit them per-sonally, while contributing to the community’s greaterworth (Blanchard and Markus 2004, Jeppesen andFredericksen 2006, Murray and O’Mahoney 2007, vonHippel and von Krogh 2006, Wasko and Faraj 2000).

      Definition of knowledge work

    20. Online communities (OCs) are open collectives of dis-persed individuals with members who are not necessarilyknown or identifiable and who share common inter-ests, and these communities attend to both their indi-vidual and their collective welfare (Sproull and Arriaga2007).

      Definition of online communities

    1. The situated and emergent nature of coordinationdoes not imply that practices are completely uniqueand novel. On the one hand, they vary accordingto the logic of the situation and the actors present.On the other hand, as seen in our categorizationof dialogic coordination, they follow a recognizablelogic and are only partially improvised. This tensionbetween familiarity and uniqueness of response is atthe core of a practice view of work (Orlikowski 2002).

      This is an important and relevant point for SBTF/DHN work. Each activation is situated and emergent but there are similarities -- even though the workflows tend to change for reasons unknown.

      Cites Orlikowski

    2. Recently, Brown and Duguid (2001, p. 208) sug-gested that coordination of organizational knowledgeis likely to be more challenging than coordination ofroutine work, principally because the “elements to becoordinated are not just individuals but communitiesand the practices they foster.” As we found in ourinvestigation of coordination at the boundary, signif-icant epistemic differences exist and must be recog-nized. As the dialogic practices enacted in responseto problematic trajectories show, the epistemic dif-ferences reflect different perspectives or prioritiesand cannot be bridged through better knowledge

      Need to think more about how subgroups in SBTF (Core Team/Coords, GIS, locals/diaspora, experienced vols, new vols, etc.) act as communities of practice. How does this influence sensemaking, epistemic decisions, synchronization, contention, negotiation around boundaries, etc.?

    3. nature point to the limitations of a structuralist viewof coordination. In the same way that an organi-zational routine may unfold differently each timebecause it cannot be fully specified (Feldman andPentland 2003), coordination will vary each time.Independent of embraced rules and programs, therewill always be an element of bricolage reflecting thenecessity of patching together working solutions withthe knowledge and resources at hand (Weick 1993).Actors and the generative schemes that propel theiractions under pressure make up an important com-ponent of coordination’s modus operandi (Bourdieu1990, Emirbayer and Mische 1998).

      Evokes the improvisation of synchronization efforts found in coordination of knowledge work in a pluritemporal setting

    4. These practices are highly situated, emer-gent, and contextualized and thus cannot be prespec-ified the way traditional coordination mechanismscan be. Thus, recent efforts based on an information-processing view to develop typologies of coordina-tion mechanisms (e.g., Malone et al. 1999) may be tooformal to allow organizations to mount an effectiveresponse to events characterized by urgency, novelty,surprise, and different interpretations.

      More design challenges

    5. Our findings also point to a broader divide in coor-dination research. Much of the power of traditionalcoordination models resides in their information-processing basis and their focus on the design issuessurrounding work unit differentiation and integra-tion. This design-centric view with its emphasis onrules,structures,andmodalitiesofcoordinationislessuseful for studying knowledge work.

      The high-tempo, non-routine, highly situated knowledge work of SBTF definitely falls into this category. Design systems/workarounds is challenging.

    6. Boundarywork requires the ability to see perspectives devel-oped by people immersed in a different commu-nity of knowing (Boland and Tenkasi 1995, Star andGriesemer 1989). Often, particular disciplinary focilead to differences in opinion regarding what stepsto take next in treating the patient.

      Differences in boundary work can lead to contentiousness.

    7. The termdialogic—as opposed to monologic—recognizes dif-ferences and emphasizes the existence of epistemicboundaries, different understandings of events, andthe existence of boundary objects (e.g., the diagnosisor the treatment plan). A dialogic approach to coordi-nation is the recognition that action, communication,and cognition are essentially relational and highlysituated. We use the concept of trajectory (Bourdieu1990, Strauss 1993) to recognize that treatment pro-gressions are not always linear or positive.

      Cites Star (boundary objects) and Strauss, Bourdieu (trajectory)

    8. A dialogic coordination practice differs from moregeneral expertise coordination processes in that itis highly situated in the specifics of the unfoldingevent, is urgent and high-staked, and occurs at theboundary between communities of practice. Becausecognition is distributed, responsibility is shared, andepistemic differences are present, interactions can becontentious and conflict laden.

      Differences between expertise and dialogic coordination processes.

    9. xpertisecoordination refers to processes that manage knowl-edge and skill interdependencies

    10. we describe two categories ofcoordination practices that ensure effective work out-comes. The first category, which we callexpertise coor-dination practices, represents processes that make itpossible to manage knowledge and skill interdepen-dencies. These processes bring about fast response,superior reconfiguration, efficient knowledge shar-ing, and expertise vetting. Second, because of therapidlyunfoldingtempooftreatmentandthestochas-tic nature of the treatment trajectory,dialogic coordina-tion practicesare used as contextually and temporallysituated responses to occasional trajectory deviation,errors, and general threats to the patient. These dia-logic coordination practices are crucial for ensuringeffective coordination but often require contentiousinteractions across communities of practice. Figure 1presents a coordination-focused model of patienttreatment and describes the circumstances underwhich dialogic coordination practices are called for.

    11. We found that coordination in a trauma settingentails two specific practices.

      "1. expertise coordination practices"

      "2. dialogic coordination practices"

      What would be the SBTF equivalent here?

    12. Based on a practice view, we suggest the followingdefinition ofcoordination: a temporally unfolding andcontextualized process of input regulation and inter-action articulation to realize a collective performance.

      Faraj and Xiao offer two important points: Context and trajectories "First, the definition emphasizes the temporal unfolding and contextually situated nature of work processes. It recognizes that coordinated actions are enacted within a specific context, among a specific set of actors, and following a history of previous actions and interactions that necessarily constrain future action."

      "Second, following Strauss (1993), we emphasize trajectories to describe sequences of actions toward a goal with an emphasis on contingencies and interactions among actors. Trajectories differ from routines in their emphasis on progression toward a goal and attention to deviation from that goal. Routines merely emphasize sequences of steps and, thus, are difficult to specify in work situations characterized by novelty, unpredictability, and ever-changing combinations of tasks, actors, and resources. Trajectories emphasize both the unfolding of action as well as the interactions that shape it. A trajectory-centric view of coordination recognizes the stochastic aspect of unfolding events and the possibility that combinations of inputs or interactions can lead to trajectories with dreadful outcomes—the Apollo 13 “Houston, we have a problem” scenario. In such moments, coordination is more about dealing with the “situation” than about formal organizational arrangements."

    13. Theprimarygoalispatientstabilizationandini-tiating atreatment trajectory—a temporally unfolding

      Full quote (page break)

      "The primary goal is patient stabilization and initiating a treatment trajectory—a temporally unfolding sequence of events, actions, and interactions—aimed at ensuring patient medical recovery"

      Knowledge trajectory is a good description of SBTF's work product/goal

    14. rauma centersare representative of organizational entities that arefaced with unpredictable environmental demands,complexsetsoftechnologies,highcoordinationloads,and the paradoxical need to achieve high reliabilitywhile maintaining efficient operations.

      Also a good description of digital humanitarian work

    15. We sug-gest that for environments where knowledge work isinterdisciplinary and highly contextualized, the rele-vant lens is one of practice. Practices emerge from anongoing stream of activities and are enacted throughthe contextualized actions of individuals (Orlikowski2000). These practices are driven by a practical logic,thatis,arecognitionofnoveltaskdemands,emergentsituations,andtheunpredictabilityofevolvingaction.Bourdieu (1990, p. 12) definespracticesas generativeformulas reflecting the modus operandi (manner ofworking) in contrast to the opus operatum (finishedwork).

      Definition and background on practice.

      Cites Bourdieu

    16. In knowledge work, several related factors sug-gest the need to reconceptualize coordination.

      Complex knowledge work coordination demands attention to how coordination is managed, as well as what (content) and when (temporality).

      "This distinction becomes increasingly important in complex knowledge work where there is less reliance on formal structure, interdependence is changing, and work is primarily performed in teams."

      Traditional theories of coordination are not entirely relevant to fast-response teams who are more flexible, less formally configured and use more improvised decision making mechanisms.

      These more flexible groups also are more multi-disciplinary communities of practice with different epistemic standards, work practices, and contexts.

      "Thus, because of differences in perspectives and interests, it becomes necessary to provide support for cross-boundary knowledge transformation (Carlile 2002)."

      Evokes boundary objects/boundary infrastructure issues.

    17. Usinga practice lens (Brown and Duguid 2001, Orlikowski2000), we suggest that in settings where work iscontextualized and nonroutine, traditional models ofcoordination are insufficient to explain coordinationas it occurs in practice. First, because expertise is dis-tributed and work highly contextualized, expertisecoordination is required to manage knowledge andskill interdependencies. Second, to avoid error andto ensure that the patient remains on a recoveringtrajectory, fast-response cross-boundary coordinationpractices are enacted. Because of the epistemic dis-tance between specialists organized in communitiesofpractice,theselattercoordinationpracticesmagnifyknowledge differences and are partly contentious.

      Faraj and Xiao contend that coordination practices of fast-response organizations differ from typical groups' structures, decision-making processes and cultures.

      1) Expertise is distributed 2) Coordination practices are cross-boundary 3) Knowledge differences are magnified

    18. In this paper, we focus on the collective perfor-manceaspectofcoordinationandemphasizethetem-poral unfolding and situated nature of coordinativeaction. We address how knowledge work is coor-dinated in organizations where decisions must bemade rapidly and where errors can be fatal.

      Summary of paper focus

  3. Aug 2018
    1. Transformed in this process is the very nature of knowledge:Neoliberalization replaces education aimed at deepening and broadening intelligence and sensibilities, developing historical consciousness and her-meneutic adroitness, acquiring diverse knowledge and literacies, becom-ing theoretically capacious and politically and socially perspicacious, with [forms of] education aimed at honing technically-skilled entrepreneurial actors adept at gaming any system. (p. 123)

      neoliberalism and the transformation of knowledge and knowledge work

    1. Other foundational accounts, like Moglen (1999) and Weber (2004),attended to the emergence of informal hierarchies and governance arrange-ments within communities.

      Other early work focused on organizational attributes, like how information goods were produced with flat/informal hierarchies, community values/norms, and governance structures.

    2. Peer productioncould, Benkler argued, outperform traditional organizational forms underconditions of widespread access to networked communications technologies,a multitude of motivations driving contributions, and non-rival informationcapable of being broken down into granular, modular, and easy-to-integrate

      Benkler's early work studied "the role of non-exclusive property regimes and more permeable organizational boundaries" for knowledge products.

  4. Aug 2015