The failure of many early collaboration systems to catch on was perplexing because software packages for individuals and organizations were doing well. What was it about developing software for groups that made it so different from developing software for individuals and organizations?

In 1994, Dr. Grudin (a computer scientist from the University of California) published an article that answered that question with the simple observation that groups were just different from individuals and organizations. How they are different is explained in his eight challenges for developers:

1. Who Does the Work and Who Gets the Benefits. Ideally the labor in operating and maintaining the groupware application must be roughly equal among the group members. In reality this is rarely the case. Consider a project management application where the team members are required to update it regularly with progress reports, performance data, and other data. A good deal of the team member’s team is compiling information and feeding the system while the project manager just has to spend a minimal amount of time reading reports the system generates. The team member sees only a burden from the software and soon starts to avoid doing this extra work which leads to poor reports causing the Project Manager to quit relying on the system for information. Soon, no one is using software.
2. Critical Mass of Users. The collaboration software field is filled with a number of different platforms for collaboration. Many offer similar features and each has its enthusiastic community of supporters. In large government agencies you can see several collaboration systems in various pockets of the organization that don’t communicate outside of their pocket. Ironically the systems that exist to promote collaboration often end up promoting organizational silos as the various groups argue that their system is the best solution.
3. Social, Political, and Motivational Factors. Dr. Grudin gives a great example of this challenge when he describes the failure of meeting management software. It assigned meeting rooms based on priority but quickly became useless because no one wanted to admit that their meeting was anything but “high priority.” As Dr. Grudin explains, collaboration software can only model a rational workplace but actual workplaces are much more complex due to organizational culture.
4. Exception Handling. We rarely work the exact way that is described in our work processes. Collaboration software built only based on the documented office procedures is seen as too rigid and not able to handle the flexibility required frequently at work. Just think of how often you don’t have a typical day at work and have to improvise a work solution. Now, imagine trying to program that into software.
5. Decreasing the Communication and Coordination Load. Organizations are designed to reduce the amount of communication and coordination needed to do the job. How many times have you said that you could get more done if you were not interrupted so often? Of these interruptions, how many were due to email, phone calls, a colleague stopping by to talk, etc.? Sometimes you can over-collaborate and this often is the result of poorly-designed groupware.
6. Hard to Evaluate Groupware. It is difficult to test groupware because the group dynamics are so hard to replicate. It can take several weeks of careful observation to fully understood how a group works and software designers just don’t have the time or expertise to fully evaluate how their software will aid in collaboration. Often the groupware vendor blames this on poor user training and will continue the same type of software with better tutorials and help aids but never realizing that the fundamental problem is that people just don’t like collaborating the way the system is forcing them to collaborate.
7. Intuitive Decision Making. Because of the nature of our work we often have to make decisions based on little evidence and thus we rely heavily on our intuition. Groupware applications rarely support intuitive decision making but rather force users to input great amounts of data so that a fully-reasoned decision can be made. Often we do not have all of the data and a decision must be made quickly so we abandon the groupware application to use a simple spreadsheet or other individual application to support our intuition.
8. Managing Acceptance of the Groupware. Too often I have seen a collaboration solution launched where the users are expected to adapt themselves to how the software works rather than the software adapting to the way the group works. There is a particular system at my work which is universally despised because it practically handcuffs a group of users to a cumbersome and protracted painful process. I’ve only used the system once but that was enough for me to avoid ever having even to click on the program icon.

Despite these principles being over sixteen-years old I still see the same mistakes being repeated in today’s Web 2.0 collaboration tools. I also see where companies have put these principles into practice and have made great collaboration software that has endured and grown in popularity. I fully suspect that Google engineers must have memorized these principles when they developed their Google Docs system. You can also see these principles at work in the various products from 37Signals and Zoho.

I leave a final exercise for the reader: how many of these principles does SharePoint violate (if any)? Or does SharePoint violate new principles of collaboration software?

Reference:

Grudin, J. (1994). Groupware and Social Dynamics: Eight Challenges for Developers. Retrieved at http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/jgrudin/past/papers/cacm94/cacm94.html.

Collaboration is important but it is not sufficient. Nicholas Charney noted this in a great posting where he questioned the value of collaboration as it was currently practiced in organizations. I commented that a tangible product from the collaboration would make the process better but I am becoming more convinced that even that is not enough. What is needed is something that would continue the benefits of collaboration between the collaboration sessions. A way of engaging the person’s thoughts and focusing those thoughts on the collaboration work even when the person is working alone. A process that I call collaborgagement. Not just a combination of collaboration and engagement but a process that is synergistic.

The foundation of collaborgagement is the mental model. The mental model has been variously defined by different fields but the consensus seems to be that mental models are “deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action” (Wind and Crook, 2005). Individuals have mental models but so do teams and departments. The purpose of the mental model is to make sense of various aspects of our lives including our work. Mental models take a great deal of effort to build but the benefit is, that once built, they reduce our thinking load.

For example, researchers have found that expert chess players actually think less than novice chess players because the expert chess player can focus on several pieces at once and perceive patterns of board arrangements. The novice chess player has to focus on separate pieces and build the pattern from the individual pieces. The expert chess player has a library of mental models they can consult that makes them better players because they can “look up” the answer to a chess problem while a novice is still calculating the problem.

The same process can be seen in everyday life. Think of how you learned to drive. Remember all the steps you had to master to start the car, put it in drive, and begin your journey. Repetition and observation helped you build a mental model so that driving almost becomes an automatic process requiring very little conscious thinking.

The challenge is that we rely on our mental models so much that we strenuously resist changing or discarding our existing models. This goes for team mental models as well as individual mental models. But our changing world requires that we change our mental models or they quickly lose their benefit and can even harm us in the new realities we face. We need a process of engaging peoples’ attention at the level of their mental models and then collaborate together to help explore current mental models and modify or even replace these mental models on an individual and team level. This is the purpose of collaborgagement.

There are probably several methods for examining current mental models and altering them but I like the process Wind and Crook (2005) outline in their book The Power of Impossible Thinking:

1. Understand the power and limits of mental models.
2. Test the relevance of your mental models against the changing environment, generate new models and develop an integrated portfolio of models.
3. Overcome inhibitors to change by reshaping infrastructure and the thinking of others.
4. Transform your world by acting quickly upon the new models, continuously experimenting and applying a process for assessing and strengthening your models. (p. xxiv)

With Wind and Crook’s (2005) process in mind this is how collaborgagment would work:

1. Before a team meeting the individual members examine their existing mental models that relate to the topic of the meeting. The team member may want to blog, mind map, or similar tool to help him or her to surface the mental models and produce it in a tangible form.
2. During the team meeting the individual members display their mental models. Then the team works together to surface the team mental models in a tangible form.
3. The team then examines the new reality of the topic and lists the characteristics. The goal of this phase is to come to a consensus about the new reality.
4. After a consensus has been reached, the team compares the current team mental model to the new reality. Does the team mental model need revising or is a completely new team mental model needed? The team works to determine the revisions or constructs the new mental model.
5. After the team meeting the individual members go on their own to reflect on the consensus about the new reality and how their current mental models compare to the new reality. The member then revises their existing mental models or constructs new mental models that reflect both the new reality and the team mental model.

What is important about this process is that it engages people on a deeper level than what usually happens in change efforts. I have been to plenty of meetings where great ideas and energy has been generated but it quickly dissipates once the meeting is over. For deep and sustainable change to happen you have to engage people at a fundamental level and produce collaboration that carries on ever after the meeting is over. I believe that starting at the mental model level is the best way to produce lasting transformative change.

Reference:
Wind, Y., & Crook, C. (2005). The power of impossible thinking: Transform the business of your life and the life of your business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

Previous Posts on Collaboration and Engagement:
Without Engagement Gov 2.0 Will Fail
The Goal of Collaboration: Navigating the Network of Idea Spaces

Then I came across a recently published book that offered specific advice on communicating a change vision. Written by Dr. Nickerson, the concept is called changecasting and it is a simple method. The leader records a series of weekly or biweekly videos that are no more than two-to-four minutes in length. In these videos the change leader speaks directly to the camera while explaining the change vision using only one idea per a video. The videos are released through a secure website for the entire organization to view simultaneously. The members of the organization are then encouraged to give their feedback to the videos through an anonymous web-based communication method. The change leader answers the feedback in subsequent videos.

In support of changecasting, Dr. Nickerson offers a case study of two firms (identities hidden) where the presidents initiated a major organizational change. One president used the changecasting method as outlined by the author while the other president used video but didn’t follow the changecasting method. The firm that used changecasting of course prospered while the other firm failed at its organizational change effort. There is a website and, for a fee, your organization can have their changecasting videos reviewed for effectiveness.

I’m usually wary of such books because many business books have plenty of anecdotes but not much empirical evidence to support the author’s claim. In this case, I think the changecasting method is a good idea because it does track well with what I found out in my research on organizational change and general theories on communicating effectively.

When change is communicated the general model is that the change leader(s) creates a vision and then broadcasts the vision to organization through different communication channels such as posters, newsletter, all-hands meetings, intranets, etc. Rarely is feedback encouraged and even rarer is the opportunity to offer anonymous feedback. Much of the advice on handling resistance to the change vision is either by marginalizing the dissenters or enforcing compliance with the change effort. Most change efforts are initiated because of a threatening situation to the organization so there is little time for dissent or even questioning of the change effort. As you can imagine, there is very little interactive communication about the change vision.

This explains why a large majority of change projects fail despite the fact that organizational change must be one of the most studied topics in management science. According to research by the Standish Group, roughly 70% of projects will not deliver promised results, go over the budget, use more time than scheduled, and/or consume more resources than planned for . Clearly, current methods for organizational change are not working effectively. There are many reasons for this but the biggest reason is resistance to change due to uncertainty about the proposed change.

Now, I don’t believe that people in general are naturally resistant to change. If that were true, people wouldn’t buy lottery tickets. What people are naturally afraid of is not understanding the implications of the change that they are compelled to follow. And it also human nature to imagine the worst in situations we do not fully understand.

This is what attracted me to changecasting. I like the aspect of keeping the messages short and simple so as to fully engage your audience. I also like the frequency of communications but what really interests me about process is the anonymous feedback. Opening up a dialogue about the proposed change can help to reduce the uncertainty and thus the resistance to change. There will probably be some residual resistance but I believe that the change leader(s) will gain more acceptance of the change vision than if they simply broadcast the change vision.

Organizational change is a fascinating area of study that also has major practical implications. Methods that can switch the 70% failure rate to a 70% success will be extremely beneficial considering the vast amounts of time, money, and resources the government now wastes on bad change projects. I am greatly interested if any readers of this blog were engaged in a change project where feedback was encouraged and if this feedback led to a successful outcome. I think the changecasting concept is a good method but it needs more empirical support.

References:
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 168-176.

Nickerson, J. (2010). Leading change in a web 2.1 world: How changecasting builds trust, creates understanding, and accelerates organizational change. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press

In doing so we have made our tools more intelligent so that they could do some thinking on their own. Think of a spreadsheet you created. Building it took concentrated intellectual effort on your part. But now, you just open the spreadsheet, enter a few numbers, and it does the thinking for you. The spreadsheet has embedded intelligence. Embedded intelligence can also exist in organizational procedures, processes, documents, and even culture. Put enough of these embedded intelligences together and you have an Idea Space.

So what does this have to do with innovation? It is through exploring different Idea Spaces and using analogical thinking that many innovation breakthroughs were achieved. Ogle gives the example of Frances and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA. Frances and Crick succeeded where other researchers failed because they were able to apply concepts from other fields and applied it to their problem. Instead of analytical thinking where they reduced the problem to its component parts they used analogies to view their problem from different perspectives and discover a solution.

This happens all of the time. You are working on a problem and then you think of something similar you did on another project. You apply the solution you created before and, with a little tinkering, it works just as well for the new problem. Real innovation occurs when you can apply a seemingly dissimilar analogy and make a truly creative breakthrough.

What all this means for you and your agency is that Idea Spaces follow the common laws of networks. Richard Ogle posits nine such laws such as the “fit get fitter” and “tipping points.” These laws boil down to two: Idea Spaces self-organize into networks and creative leaps occur by connecting Idea Spaces through analogical thinking.

Go look at your colleagues offices. What is their extended mind like? Think of your agency procedures and practices. What Idea Spaces exist there? How would you characterize the network of Idea Spaces? Is it easy to navigate? Can your apply analogical thinking from your colleagues’ Idea Spaces? What barriers exist in agency policies that prevent navigation and analogical thinking?

Nick Charney wrote in a recent blog posting about what is the goal of collaboration. He is correct in that just getting together to talk is not enough. I suggest that the goal of collaboration is to share our Idea Spaces and help others navigate the Idea Spaces so that we can apply analogical thinking to solve our collective problems. We should map our Idea Spaces, help the network of Idea Spaces grow, and clear away the underbrush and barriers to navigation. That is the return on investing in collaboration.

This is why Gov 2.0 and Open Gov are so important. They are not ends in themselves but they make the Idea Spaces network stronger and easier to navigate because the Gov 2.0 tools make it easier to embed intelligence while Open Gov encourages more collaboration. As you go about your work try to see your agency as a collection of Idea Spaces. Is the network strong or does it need help? What barriers are preventing you from applying analogical thinking in your work? Can Gov 2.0 and Open Gov help your agency create a better Idea Spaces network?

Reference:

Ogle, R. (2007). Smart world: Breakthrough creativity and the new science of ideas. Harvard Business School Press.

Appendix A – Formal Definition of Idea Space: “a domain or world viewed from the perspective of the intelligence embedded in it, intelligence that we can use – consciously or not – both to solve our everyday problems and to make the creative leaps that lead to breakthrough” (p. 13).

How Andrew Breitbart Hacks the Media – Wired, April 2010.

By now, you have probably heard of how Shirley Sherrod, a former(?) Federal official, was forced to resign after a heavily-edited video of a recent speech she gave at an NAACP event was used as evidence of reverse-racism in Obama’s administration.  After the tape was released by Mr. Breitbart to FOX News, both the NAACP and White House called for Ms. Sherrod’s resignation.

Then, the unedited video was released (you can view it here).  Basically, the videotape shows that Ms. Sherrod’s statements were the exact opposite of what FOX News reported.  The NAACP apologized last night for being “snookered“  and called for her case to be reconsidered.  The farm family that Sherrod referred to even defended her while, just a few hours ago, the White House apologized.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided if the White House and the USDA remembered one basic fact – FOX News is not an actual news station.  Also, once they realized that Mr. Breitbart was behind the videotape, they should have remembered how an earlier, heavily-edited videotape falsely accused ACORN (and let to that organization’s demise).  At the very least, someone should have asked to see the complete unedited tape.  Even Mr. Breitbart admits that viewing the entire tape demonstrates that Ms. Sherrod is not a racist.

Mr. Breitbart and others like him are taking advantage of the decline of journalism.  Newsrooms are cutting back on staff and especially investigate reporters.  At the same time, they have to fill the 24-hour news hole and compete with other cable stations and local news.  Ratings are more essential now than ever.  Media manipulators know these weaknesses and use them to their partisan advantage.  As the Sherrod case shows, reputations can be damaged in just a few hours.  What is unusual about the Sherrod case is that the true picture came just as quickly.  In cases such as ACORN or Climategate, it was several months before the truth came out but was of little help in averting the damage.

It is imperative that the audience become more skeptical and reserve judgment before all of the facts are in.  More and more media manipulators are taking advantage of the decline of traditional journalism to spread their falsehoods.  Unfortunately, I don’t hold much hope as when obviously fictional news events (such as this from the Onion) are viewed as investigative journalism.

You have a strange idea of “fun,” Mr. Breitbart.