Collaboration and changing rules

On my wishlist is a small number of games to explore.

FLUXX (zombie~, monty python ~, …).

220px-Fluxx-2009

This game is based on changing rules! Nice.

A new evolving type of game playing are collaboration games. In Haarlem you can find Spellenhuis, publisher of spelregeluitleg.nl. The owner produces short movies about all kind of (board) games, including collaboration games like Krakow and Pandemic.

Beware, Roborally, beware! Beat that, Hexagon!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail

Visual simplicity

I bought a new book, Dataflow 2. The book is filled with very pretty imagery based on complex information, but why are those images not self explaining? Form follows function has missed a turn. Sure I do like visual complexity, but what about visual simplicity?

data_flow_2_review

Create your own opinion after seeing this review

Anyway… I should have bought a very elegant example of graphic design. In the same shop. The Tabletto

tabletto1

tabletto4

tabletto2

tabletto3

Simple and beautiful. All available @ the graphic design museum Breda. Or use this webform.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail

Visual reflections of social behavior

With reference to JM DiMicco. “Changing Small Group Interaction through Visual Reflections of Social Behavior,” PhD Thesis, MIT Media Lab. May 2005. (link to abstract & index terms)

Link to other work of Joan Morris Di Micco

THE THESIS
abstract
[.] “This thesis proposes that technology in face-to-face settings can be used to adress the social factors that have a damaging influence on group decision-making in progress”
The differentiates by excluding a mediator. It uses “visualizations to the group {, visualizations} of individual levels of participation and turn-taking behavior.
Realtime visualization of participation levels ‘capped of’ excessive participation, whereas realtime visualization of turn-taking did not produce this change. Feedback of turn-taking in between the sessions did. Only groups with poor information sharing strategies did benefit reviewing turn-taking patterns.
“The central finding of this research is that displays of social information, viewed during or after a meeting, bring about changes in a group’s communication style, highlighting the potential for such displays to improve real-world decision-making.”

POINTS OF INTEREST
[!] In chapter 3 Visualizing behavior I find some interesting quotes:

1) “Social translucence … {is a principle} of increasing visibility of behavior and interaction patterns”
2) “By producing an automatic summary of the group interaction and allowing a group to replay it, I hypothesize that Second Messenger 2.0 can similarly assist groups in understanding and improving their interactions”

[!] Use collaboration technology within the role of a social facilitator to adress the issues of group behavior, rather than as a process or communication mediator.

[.] 1-A Theoretical grounding
“First, determine ways to increase vigilance in considering choice alternatives (Janis 1982); second, work to limit the effects of group polarization (a group’s tendency to shift towards risk or caution) (Brown 1986); and third, discover ways to increase the sharing of information between individuals (Stasser 1987).”
The idea arises that there might be a beter way towards group decision making, besides training (leadership & procedures).

[!] 1-C Mediation technology
Technology as a mediator has it’s negative side effects (trust issues, lower rates of accuracy, time consumption, declarative statements over information based statements, polarization). DiMicco suggests Media-Richness Theory, focussing on ‘the limitations of our ability to express ourselves in the current media’, rather than on our group processes.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail

Stigmergic interaction

The research of Mark Elliot about Stigmergic Collaboration (2007) concludes with paragraph ‘Future directions: Participatory governance…’ refering to the interface below as an example of mass collaboration. This award winning interface triggers a thought.

IDSA_Sugar_Sm

[!] In combination with the potential of ‘Organisation Arrangements‘, a visualization like the one above could be interesting way of feedback of group behavior. I’m thinking of displaying realtime feedback of dynamics in group relationships and group intentions. I’m thinking about the introduction of group interference, based on existing but unspoken behavior and (silent) intentions:

[?] How could already existing differences be magnified to positively effect the collaborative task at hand, while minimizing negative, unwanted side effects of this magnified differences?

If you too want to explore this idea, while I’m still setting up my research, go ahead! And please keep me informed.
If you already know other initiatives about visualizing group behavior, please leave a comment below.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail

A visualization approach for group behaviors, beliefs and intentions

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2009, Volume 5621/2009, 91-100, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-02774-1_10 (link to article)

THE ARTICLE
abstract
[.] About the need for effective data visualization which minimizes information overload and introduces misinterpretation by simplified visualization based on aggregations.
A visualization approach was developed… for all {5} of the classes of models based on frames of reference for time and physical location within the environment.

POINTS OF INTEREST
[!] 1.2 – 5 Classes of population models. This paragraph describes classes that study the believes of groups and how their beliefs change as a result of events

System Dynamics Models coarse grain data, large time scales, validity of model parameters estimation is difficult, heavy footprint to deploy, explicit causal mechanisms, inherent representation of time  Historical Dynamics: Why states rise and fall (2003)
Social Network Models lack of causality mechanisms, does not aggregate to larger social units, limited predictive ability, rich and detailed representation of population entities, sensitive to differences in populations Models and methods in social network analysis: Structural analysis in social sciences (2005)
State Transition Models behaviours described statistically, lack of explicit representation and reasoning about population’s reactions, inherent representation of time, potential for prediction of long term effects Handbook of systems engineering (1999)
Group Ideology Models uses everyday perceptions in terms of large mount of unstructured data, has inherent mechanisms for representing causality, representation of differences in populations, needs continous updating and maintenance Politics: Automated Ideological reasoning (1978)
Group Dynamics Models richest representation of causal data with same challenges as GI-model, best for short term predictions, group intention understanding possible, and future states of a population can be predicted The Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (1999)

[!] 3.2 – Information requirements …
This paragraph states that Group Ideollogy Models are best for usa as inherent mechanisms for visualizing causality. I quote: “…driven on every day perception as opposed to survey data. Each group has their beliefs which may be inaccurate, incomplete and inconsistent. The model directly represents the qualities of a belief and uses those qualities in infer relations to other beliefs, an thus derive corresponding interventions. This makes the model a good candidate for projecting short term population reactions and beliefs.”
I see the value of the suggestion to use this model in combination with the social network model (which lacks an explicit mechanism to show causality).
The Ideology model and Group Dynamics Model are said to be quite similar, however “the knowledge within the Group Dynamics Model is focussed on group dynamics rather than ideology. … It studies information  exchanges between the groups involved and identifies optimal strategies for influencing their behaviors” With reference to ‘A balanced approach for LLOs {Logical Lines of Operations} using group dynamics for COIN {COunterINsurgency, military} efficacy’ (2009).

COMMENTS
[-] I would argue against the suggested “predictive potential” of models on behavior. We are not dealing with waterheights in a river. We’re talking about ‘black swanish‘ human group behavior.
[-] This article does not really describe interaction between groups. It describes one way analysis and Courses Of Action based on that analysis.
[!] However I do see value in the proposed usage of visualizations. I.e. maps, because this places (and keeps) information within it’s context (over time). This reminds me at the oration of van Marrewijk (2009). First he quotes Kreiner (1995): “Traditional functional and instrumental approaches decontextualize complexe projects…”. Second he adds up Hodgson & Cicmil (2006): “…but don’t offer understanding of the complexity and cultural dynamics”. He continues that: “project organisations are after all not situatied in a stable … context in which project related goals and activities are clear and workprocesses can be predicted”. In my earlier post ‘Serendipity and negotiation‘ a simliar bottleneck in a political bureaucratic context is discussed.
Taking my personal experiences into account – concerining the development innovation dashboards and implementation of shared portfolio’s – this threat of ‘decontextualization’ in is apparent in a multidisciplinar complex context.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail

Serendipity and negotiation

With reference to van Santen, W., Jonker, C. and Wijngaards, N. (2009) ‘Crisis decision making through a shared integrative negotiation mental model’, Int. J. Emergency Management, Vol. 6, Nos. 3/4, pp.342–355. (link to article)

 

Abstract
[.] Authors do not mention that decision making during crisis also takes place in the field (golden hour), where command-and-control does function. As a result, and due to political context, it is my experience that it is especially hard for decision makers to get the right information at the right time. Well, let us follow the lead of decision making in a bureaucratic context and follow the conclusion. What exactly does a ‘shared teamwork mental model’ mean? I agree, the given context can be seen as a negotiation proces. Parts of it, to be more precise: negotiation in between orientation and decision making phases. Within a repetitive iteration of dialogues. A multidisciplinary setting -in which most parties might have something valuable to offer to the others- a cooperative approach certainly can be a promising approach of decision making. I’ll read on to find out why ‘assertiveness’ is a second recommendation. However I’m wondering. What’s with wrong with C2 and fine chairmanship in decision making within time restrictions?

[-] 1-Introduction
…{because of the fact that} … decision making can … be seen as a negotiation process {within the given context}, …an assertive and cooperative approach is best suited, and {therefore} …a shared integrative model of negotiation {is best for} crisis decision making. That sounds quite bold to me.

[!] 2-Bureaucratic politics in crisis management
I agree.

[-] 3-A negotiation perspective on crisis decision making
‘So during crises, the optimal negotiation attitude is a win-win attitude.’… I don’t think an army decision maker would agree.

[!] 4-Mental models in collaborative decision making
Nice outline of (shared) mental models.

[.] 5-Mental models of negotiation in crisis decision making
I would like to add that perhaps recognizing the used mental models is important. I can’t imagine a good bureaucrat without this capacity.

6-Conclusion
* C2 doesn’t hold. I agree, some other situations need other tactics
* Crisis decision is -in my opinion- more than negotiation only. Negotiation should connect two other phases (orientation and decision making itself), before the next phase (delegating actions).
* I cannot agree that in every scenario of crisis decision making there is allways one suitable approach.
* This goes for the seemingly preferred ‘shared integrative model’ as well. Why don’t we ask Defcon.
* Yes, focussing on a shared goal is insurmountable for multidisciplinary decision making.

I would propose to extend C2 (Command-and-Control) toward C3 (C2 + Communication). C3 as adagium of sharing information on the fly and learning how others work and thereby creating mental models.
Page 68-69 in this article (Department of Internal Affairs, 2009) refers to Dynamical Situation Reports, successfully tested in decision making training during crisis in a bureaucratic, political context. The article pleads for cooperation, not necessarily for assertiveness.
It’s all about sharing information and not about being assertive (to something). We should try to make serendipity work. The same way xTRIZ (Valeri Souchkov) uses the Ideal Final Solution: use a problem to solve itself/it’s unwanted side effects.

Let’s define our ultimate goal, true Collaboration, the ultimate sum of C2 & C3, with an explosive working title: C4.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail

Organisation constellations

About an intervention technique using an emotional approach from a holistic perspective. Based on family constellations (Franke, 2003). This method uses the positioning of persons representing other persons/brands/processes, who give direct feedback about their relative position to the others.

There seems to be one catch when thinking about taking this method into computer visualization: emotional feedback of real persons is eminent. 

[?] Is it possible to incorporate such human automatic emotional feedback into a computerized intervention?

DUTCH: Wim Jurg, Unravelling branding systems Nieuwe ontwikkeling in het veld van organisatieopstellingen

Het fenomeen organisatieopstelling is nog jong. Het aantal professionals dat zich in dat veld beweegt is groeiende. En daarmee ook het aantal mensen om hen heen dat persoonlijk ervaren heeft wat een organisatieopstelling kan brengen.
Unravelling branding systems is de titel van de Engelse handelseditie van het proefschrift van Wim Jurg, waarop hij op 1 november 2010 is gepromoveerd. Het verzamelt en analyseert de waardering en bruikbaarheid van de merkopstelling als een middel voor branding en marketing. Natuurlijk beschrijft het ook de opstellingen zelf.

wimjurg

U kunt het boek bestellen via onze website:http://www.hetnoorderlicht.com ISBN: 9789077290132

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail

Situational behaviour and power between partners

“Culture and cultural differences are not so much resources, but rather resources for cross-cultural cooperation in unequal power relations”

Source: Ailon & Kunda, 2003, the local selves of global workers: The Social Construction of National Identity in the face of organizational Globalization, Byun & Ybema, 2005

Japanese business In the Dutch polder: the experience of differences in cultutal asymetric power relations

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail

Types of altruism

Harvard professor and business author Yochai Benkler (The Penguin and The Leviathan: The Science and Practice of Cooperation recently spoke at the Santa Fe Institute.

[!] He distinguishes five types of altruism in this video (@ 28 minutes):

  1. Kin altruism, or inclusive fitness (Hamilton): “I wil jump into a river ro save two brothers or eight cousins” {genetic}
  2. Direct reciprocity (Trivers): “tit for tat” {or taking your chances} “I help you. You help me”
  3. Indirect reciprocity: “pay it forwards” {on average positive feedback, therefore better of as an individual} “My strategy also depends on what you have done to others”
    1. Upstream reciprocity occurs when an act of altruism causes the recipient to perform a later act of altruism in the benefit of a third party. In other words: A helps B, which then motivates B to help C.
    2. Downstream reciprocity occurs when the performer of an act of altruism is more likely to be the recipient of a later act of altruism. In other words: A helps B, making it more likely that C will later help A.
  4. Network reciprocity / graph selection (Lieberman): “Sharing selectively with others within one’s network”, “Clusters of cooperators do well”
  5. Multilevel (group) selection (Sloan Wilson,Traulsen & Nowak) “Selection can be bad for the individual, and at same time good for the group, i.e. Evolutionary models to culture and institutions” {?war/sacrifice} “Groups of cooperators out-compete other groups”

For details, see ‘Five rules for the evoluion of cooperation’ (Nowak).
[!] Interesting quotes:

David Haig: “For direct reciprocity you need a face. For indirect reciprocity you need a name.”

Indirect reciprocity leads to social intelligence and human language
Games of indirect reciprocity are cognitively demanding;

individuals need to monitor the social network of a group.
=> evolution of social intelligence

Individuals must be able to talk to each other about others.
=> evolution of human language

[?] I’m wondering whether these types will stand, when groups are more or less obliged to work together…

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail