Hello, I'm Chris Dent. Sorry for this late message and sorry for
missing the gathering. I had some timing conflicts and more
importantly a distinct lack of funds. (01)
I'll begin with a bit of intro and then move on to some comments
on the discovered definition of Collaboration (which I like).
I've discovered this messasge is quite long. I seem to be using
it for a bit of mental cleanout. Thanks for the opportunity and
sorry for the length. (02)
I've been interacting (sometimes collaborating) with Eugene off
and on in various capacities for about 3 years. We encountered
one another in mailing list communities associated with Doug
Engelbart's Bootstrap organization (sometimes known as Alliance,
sometimes known as Institute). (03)
Around then, I had started a masters program in Information
Science at Indiana University. I had left a technical leadership
role at a mid-sized ISP to fill up some of the holes in my brain.
In my first class I was introduced to Engelbart, attracted to his
ideas of augmentation, co-evolution and the necessity of
collaborative effort to solve wicked problems. I started
scrounging around for ways to know more. (04)
My first project of note in the IS program[1] laid the groundwork
for a continuing sense that the foundation of a good
collaborative toolset is the ability to access and reuse existing
information. By access I don't mean find; I mean having a
graspable handle and being aware of how things are being grasped. (05)
My second project[2] was based on some of Engelbart's ideas but
explored them through the writings of other authors. I was trying
to describe a productive "using" rather than "partnering" or
"communicating" interaction with computers. I didn't quite hit
it, and I've since discovered much more fodder in the notions of
embodied and situated cognition combined with a bit of
phenomenology[3] that await a book or PhD thesis if I can find
the steam. (06)
I came to the Bootstrap mailing lists with these things in my
head. Eugene and I noticed each other as people who thought
interesting things and often backed up our noodling with
experiments or tools. Around the time Eugene was thinking
about creating Blue Oxen, I was looking for a way to get some
credits to finish up my degree without taking yet another boring
class. We concocted an internship that turned me, with time, into
a cofounder of the organization. Eugene and I had met in person
only once. (07)
Eugene and I spent several months fleshing out what's since
become TheBlueOxenWay. The same semester I did the internship I
was taking an extremely hard core practical class in software
design patterns[4]. I suspect that class had some impact on the
direction we chose. The class, as described in the referenced
document, is one of the most significant collaborative events of
my life. Another is the interactions I had with the team I worked
with before going back to school. (08)
Both cases strongly support the idea that a shared goal is a very
important part of successful collaboration. (09)
I never gained the traction with Blue Oxen that I needed to feel
successful. In part this was because I was spread too thin, with
too many other obligations. I part this was because Eugene and I
demonstrated another important aspect of collaboration: while we
had a fairly robust shared language and to some degree a quite
robust shared understanding, the details of our shared goals were
not as well understood as they could have been. I, at least,
found it difficult to get the necessary food out of the shared
system. (010)
So I've since moved on to other things. I think this has been
positive for us both. I hope Eugene agrees. We are exploring
more diverse areas now than we might have been otherwise. (011)
I continue to work in Blue Oxen related areas: I've been one of
the primary authors of PurpleWiki, where I've been able to put
some of my hopes for good accessibility, backlinking and
transclusion into practice; I regularly contribute to the
Collaboration Collaboratory; I hang out on the fringes of events
like these and step in when I am able. (012)
By day I work as a software developer and communications
lubricant for a development team working at Indiana University.
There I try to implement the things I've learned and continue to
learn about collaboration. The most significant observation
there, thus far, is continued proof that transparency in
communication combined with diligent archiving and refactoring is
big magic in making things better along many dimensions but they
are still not enough without a shared commitment to a shared
goal. (013)
I'm playing a waiting game for something to crystallize in my
brain so I can make a succinct statement of my interests and
thus determine a course of doctoral study or career. In the
meantime I go to work and do a lot of rock climbing in the Red
River Gorge. (014)
Which leaves me at the definition: (015)
Collaboration occurs when two or more people interact and
exchange knowledge in pursuit of a shared, collective, bounded
goal.
http://collab.blueoxen.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Collaboration#nid132 (016)
I think this hits it very nicely, the key words being "shared" and
"bounded". The people involved all need to know the goal, and
there needs to be an understanding that there is an endpoint to the
work involved; a point when the participants can say "we're done,
we did it." (017)
This mirrors many of the things I said in a blog entry back in
September called "Collaboration Requires Goals"[5]. The
conversations (both in person and in email, much of it related to
an as yet unreleased Blue Oxen paper) surrounding that document
discussed the difference between community building and
collaboration. Both are valuable, but they are different. (018)
An interesting aspect of this definition is how it might impact
thoughts about Engelbart's A, B, and C activities[6]. This line: (019)
Bounded goals imply a beginning and an end. Two people
interacting in order to get smarter is not collaboration.
However, two people interacting in order to prepare for a
calculus exam is.
http://collab.blueoxen.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Collaboration#nid136 (020)
Interacting to get smarter might be called a C-activity
(improving the improvement process) while interacting in order to
prepare for an exam could be called B (improving your capability,
making yourself better at calculus tests) or A (doing calculus)
depending on your point of view. (021)
The last 3 years have demonstrated that it is difficult to
collaborate on things Engelbartian and feel any sense of motion.
Perhaps it's the nature of the beast? I've often said that things
were not properly bounded. Perhaps it is a question of framing:
smaller pieces and their associated smaller expectations required. (022)
Finally, I'm extremely please to see that individual intention
and commitment has been included in the definition. (023)
I think it might be an interesting exercise to create names and
stories for those styles of interaction that are like
collaboration but are missing one or some of the key pieces: (024)
* shared bounded goal
* intention
* commitment (025)
The stories might acts as foils that engender more clarity to the
definition of collaboration. (026)
Another aspect perhaps worth investigating: understanding whether
a group is collaborating has much to with the distance from which
the activity is viewed and the boundaries of the language used in
the activity. Since Eugene likes sports stories so much, I'll use
one of those to demonstrate: (027)
I went climbing recently with someone I had not climbed with
before. I did not know him well, but I had interacted with him
somewhat in the climbing gym. From the beginning of our trip, our
climbing was successful. We had a good grasp of the language of
climbing, both in the literal sense of the words we used to
communicate and the movements our bodies used to get up the wall,
and we were able to cooperate in the effort of getting someone safely
where they want to go. Our time, though, was not immediately
comfortably fun. (028)
As time passed, we built up a better understanding of one another
(there was the mild magic of the small unfolding of test
conversation topics to see what avenues of discussion are or are
not taboo). We broadened and deepened our shared language away
from just climbing into other scenarios. As time passed we became
more comfortable with one another, had more fun, and climbed
better. The resolution of our shared understanding of our shared
goal(s) and its context increased. We were not there just to get
up the wall, we were there to have a complete experience. (029)
I hope the workshop was valuable for the participants and I hope
the discussions continue. (030)
[1] Hypertext and Knowledge Enhancement
http://www.burningchrome.com:8000/~cdent/sliswarp/
Explores some the history, design goals and failings of hypertext
in the context of knowledge as something built from information. (031)
[2] http://www.burningchrome.com:8000/~cdent/arts/my/1.1.wiki
The Computer as Tool: From Interaction to Augmentation
Eugene cites this paper in his recent "A Manifesto For
Collaborative Tools". (032)
[3] http://www.burningchrome.com:8000/~cdent/index.cgi?word=110
A review of my contributions to a reading group looking for
connections between augmentation and embodied cognition. (033)
[4] http://www.burningchrome.com:8000/~cdent/slis/b649/heliumPerf.html
A review of a software design patterns class. (034)
[5] http://www.burningchrome.com:8000/~cdent/mt/archives/000210.html
Collaboration Requires Goals, an explanation of why WikiWords are
good for collaboration. (035)
[6]http://www.bootstrap.org/#2B
http://www.invisiblerevolution.net/engelbart/glossary/capability_infrastruct.html
Some information on A, B and C activities. (036)
--
Chris Dent http://burningchrome.com:8000/~cdent/mt/ cdent@burningchrome.com
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find
more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than
have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. -- C. P. Snow (037)
--
This message is archived at: (038)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=patterns&i=Pine.OSX.4.53.0404162257040.2208@nitrous.local (039)
|