>There are two issues that strike me from the excellent discussion last
>week. First, I'd like to see us attempt again to define the terms
>"collaboration," "coevolution," and "collective IQ" in light of the
>discussion. (01)
Evolution in nature does not have an "IQ." It is a rather "dumb"
exploration of evolutionary space, seeking niches which are most
nurturing. It seems to me that "effectiveness" conveys how evolution
proceeds, and "adaptability" is a key indicator of potential success. It
is not reasonable to talk about the IQ of the web, but rather its
adaptability and effectiveness in "creating a space for information to
exist." The web is defined by its growing, not its being built. The web
cannot be understood by understanding all its parts, the whole is much
greater. We have come to expect surprises from the Web; indeed, if it
quit being surprising, it might well disintegrate. A space shuttle,
however, is a "built" object, and its "whole" can be understood as the
sum of its parts. We want predictability, not surprises, from its
operations. (02)
It seems to me that designing the web (or a hospital information system)
is a fundamentally different problem than designing the space shuttle.
However, nearly all of our software tools, management systems,
accounting systems, and MBA's focus on achieving machine-like precision.
For projects which truly are machine-like, perhaps this cognitive
paraphernalia is appropriate. However, for things which start simply
and sprout ongoing surprises, we need a different kind of toolset. (03)
This is all a long way of answering the question. It depends on whether
we are talking about systems (or spaces) within which we expect emergent
properties, or those which we expect "clockwork" like precision? If we
are talking about how to integrate the work efforts between two aircraft
manufacturers, it is the latter. If we are talking about a fundamental
change in the health care system, it is the former. (04)
>Second, given the general tools-orientation of our group, I was struck
>by the number of people who identified the locus of the collaboration
>problem to be more of a people problem than a tool problem. If this
>is indeed the consensus feeling of our community, what specific
>"people steps" can we start to take to improve collaboration within
>this community? (05)
Sorry about the neologism, but I'd like to introduce the term "orgware"
discuss this. Orgware is a collection of tools, people, their shared
knowledge, and the culture which emerges. This would include knowledge
management, virtual communities, learning organizations, networked
improvement communities, chaords, IT applications, operating systems,
"community operating systems," listserves, and a host of other things.
For lack of a better name, I'll call the things pulled together by
common orgware "orgs." Orgs need to have a sense of identity, but the
boundaries caused by this identity also cause "stovepiping." (06)
Perhaps having an anthropologist on the team is reasonable. (07)
--
This message is archived at: (08)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=002a01c2ecdb$28f78be0$6401a8c0@tomoffice (09)
|