Tim Brown urges designers to think big in this TED talk:

…nice summary about participatory design / design thinking.

… Instead of thinking in order to build, building in order to think …

Exactly how I consider the value of visualizing the understanding of relationships. Group collaboration needs a two step rocket:

1. Realtime visualizations of direct relationships (within a collaborative subset of indivuiduals)
2. Summarized visualizations of indirect relationships (between the organisational ‘backbones’ of those individuals)

…visualize in order to build & think…

Martin Krzywinski presents an alternative representation of hairball-like network visualizations:

Exploring data sets and communicating your findings are two different activities. Typically, the same visualization approach does not suit both.

• Exploratory visualizations are too complex to communicate.
• Communicative Visualizations cannot be created until data is explored.

Screenshot slide 3. See more @ this presentation

To me this pleads for finding a way of realtime data visualization. And for working with small datasets, to keep things simple.

Nice animated interactive explanation of how torrents behave. Skip the screenshot; go and explore the source below!

Source You play with it by adding/deleting a peer. You can hack the original processing-programm (object orriented java) as well…

… A pitty that torrent files are quite robust (content and size), instead of ever changing content of dialogues and interaction within a group… where new rules (aka new content) leads to new behavior.

Let’s compare (yes, wild comparison) this torrent model with live group information exchange. Every peer would create his/her own interpretation of the original content and likely try to contaminate or enrich the original content:

[?] Will content ever be synced over all nodes?
[?] What criteria would influence convergence of information (aka a shared perspective)?
[?] Which distribution of content is needed to let enough peers agree: ‘ok, let’s do this’?

All torrents roughly behave alike.
[?] But what if some peers would apply tit-for-tat, other peers would apply direct reciprocity and some of those peers would also have to agree with their organisational backbone (kin selection), before concluding the value of information? Or, in collaboration, don’t people usually mix types of reciprocity.
[?] Can types of reciprocity be seen as one (ore a mixed set of) attribute(s) of a relation?

In her book “Complexity a guided tour”, Mitchell refers to ‘Idea models’ (chapter 14, Prospects of Computer modeling). According to Mitchell Idea models are to have 4 roles in science:

1. Show that a proposed mechanism for a phenomenon is plausible or not
2. Explore the effects of variantions on a simple model and prime one’s intuitions about a complex phenomenon
3. Inspire new technologies
4. Lead to mathematical theories.

[?] What if we could transfer these mathematical theories into practical tools?

[!] Let’s take the set of equations, presented by Nowak (Science 2006) in ‘Five rules for the evoluion of cooperation’ (Nowak). He shows an equation for every type (or at least a fixed set) of reciprocity. This typology is similar to that of Benkler (see earlier post ‘Types of altruism’).

Kin selection	b/c >1/r	r…coefficient of relatedness
Direct reciprocity	b/c >1/w	w…probability of another round
Indirect reciprocity	b / c > 1 / q	q…probability to know reputation
Graph selection	b/c >k	k…number of neighbors
Group selection	b/c > 1 + n/m	n…group size m…number of group

[!] These equations are a valuable basis exploring relationships and reciprocity, provided they are to  be translated in some kind of questioning tool. This way, there will be a basis for datacollection and exploration:

1. Translation of equations into words, so a questionairre or interviews (for example) can be used to determine the types of reciprocity within a group (perhaps accompanied with a fresh idea model).
2. Translation of verbal results into visuals, so the value of direct feedback of group-reciprocity can be tested.
3. Translation of visuals into consecutive series, so development of group cooperation (based on the five types of reciprocity) can be measured by comparing current visuals with previous ones.

The actions above need to be defined as research questions and interesting cases are to be defined.

[!] MOST IMPORTANT: Define how visualizing relationships will be about gaining perspectives, and not about creating a false feeling of control by detailled descriptions of relationships.

Personal notes for unraveling the ‘mist of reciprocity’:

ad 0: explore idea models

ad 1: The (relative) presence of each type of reciprocity appears by measurement of 5 parameters for every single (or for the top X of the total number of) relation(s)

ad 2: <creating a shared image of all interests (for both individuals and their backbones), defined by the presence/weight of each type …>

ad 3: <… translated into ‘to have a finger-on-the-pulse system available, to be used during collaboration in complex situations’>

Three interesting issues are arising after some personal encounters. These issues offer potential for focussed, extensive interviews during the early stages of creating a base line:

1. One suggestion (based on yet unpublished research) states that organisations don’t communicate themselves. It’s the employees / members / persons working in the name of these organisations who communicate. … Seems logic: this doesn’t really sounds like rocket science, does it?
   I’m wondering what research validates information sharing to be allways happening at the level of the individual, and not at the level of team or organisation.
2. Another suggestion splits up personal and business interest. In collaboration activities very often the person ‘an sich’ is experienced as trustworthy. It seems however that -when working in between ‘the smaller part and the larger whole‘ – the individual is outshined (and/or bound to) by the larger whole and its intentions.
3. And thirdly, officially there is never uncertainty whether a whether collaboration is based on PPS or clear ownership of an assignment (principal versus provider). Formally this isn’t the case of course. This raises the question why exactly complex systems tend to fail.

To me it feels schizofrenic when collaboration should to decrease entropy of the smaller part, with counter intuitive side effects on the larger whole, when dealing with complex systems. The other way around (counter intuitive side effects at the smaller part because of decrease in entropy of the larger whole) is also understandable.

Interviews and / or literature research are tools for answering the suggestions / questions above. Or at least for closing in.

I asume visual feedback provides an alternative for working in complex systems. Further reading on research like DiMicco‘s, will help validating the value of visual interventions. Its shortcomings included.
Perhaps an early intervention with student groups (see ideas for cases) could help define shortcomings of visual feedback of group collaboration (within a group).

I am especially interested in feedback between groups, not within a group. Therefore it’s worth exploring this:

1) Take a multidisciplinary case…

2) Where stakeholder relationships are defined…

3) and each individual has an organizational backbone…

4) With overlaping &/ interfering organizational agenda’s and intentions.

5) Why not take snapshots of relations and intentions in time…

6) and transfer such a snapshots periodically into ‘the larger whole’ (the same snapshots to all parties), adapt backbone relationships and transfer adaptations back into the case.

… most likely I need to split up this last image.

In other words, how could visualizaton of relations bring understanding of and to relationships. Relationships of individuals informing their organizational backbones with a uniform perspective of group relationships and intentions?

• How could visualizations help transfer these relations and intentions, instead of steering content and knowledge?
• Exactly which process criteria are necessary to strengthen group decision making when using visuals?
• How can visualizations steer towards the intention of coopertion, when the going get’s tough?

Feel free to play around with this inteactive sketch available at wereldopener.nl

Source: Studio Smack

I almost forgot. This seems relevant though. When working as co-owner of Taiko, we developed a method for visualizing social networks.

For more information, please take a look @ Taiko and @ LaRed . Or contact me.

Most likely you’ve also read something about the recent leaked personal opinions of US politicians and diplomats. I’m not really interested in who exactly did leak this information or by what intention. I’m curious however whether this leakage will really harm current and future diplomatic relations or not.

Why can’t this have a constructive effect? In everyday business we have a tool called ‘intervention’, designed to ‘leak’ and overcome bottlenecks of personal interaction.

Leaked diplomatic memos from the U.S. ambassador in Paris cast French President Nicolas Sarkozy as “hyperactive” and impulsive, an authoritarian leader surrounded by aides who don’t dare challenge him. (source)

An intriguing alliance: American diplomats in Rome reported in 2009 on what their Italian contacts described as an extraordinarily close relationship between Vadimir V. Putin, the Russian prime minister, and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister and business magnate, including “lavish gifts,” lucrative energy contracts and a “shadowy” Russian-speaking Italian go-between. They wrote that Mr. Berlusconi “appears increasingly to be the mouthpiece of Putin” in Europe. The diplomats also noted that while Mr. Putin enjoyed supremacy over all other public figures in Russia, he was undermined by an unmanageable bureaucracy that often ignored his edicts. (source)

Angela Merkel’s role as Germany’s and Europe’s leader is undisputed. No other leader of a large member state is politically fit enough to offer himself up as a leader, … . However, she is conscious that her strength derives largely from the weakness of her counterparts and other factors beyond her control. (source)

Yes I know, normal ‘professional’ interventions usually take place behind closed doors. And such results are not to be leaked online. Could you imagine Poetin, Berlusconi, Merkel and Obama in a get together group intervention? I.e. using the endresult of this idea I issued earlier.
Suppose they do meet up for an intervention, would you be interested in the outcomes or not? Would your knowledge of the outcomes effect their decision making?

[?] Are there other conditions besides ‘lack of context’ that make visualized reciprocity harmful?

[?] Are there other conditions besides ‘contextual awareness’ that make visualized reciprocity useful?

With reference to Kadhamabari Sankaranarayanan, August, 2010 (link)

[!] Chapter 2.2 of this thesis about online communities describes two theories, originating from organizational science: “There are two theories of group attachments that have been linked to design decisions on online communities (Ren et al., 2007). They are the common identity theory and the common bond theory. The common identity theory makes predictions about the causes and consequences of people’s attachment to the group as a whole while the common bond theory makes predictions about the causes and consequences of people’s attachments to individual group members (Ren et al., 2007).”

Common Identity Theory (people’s attachments to the group as a whole)

social categorization (Turner, 1985) (Turner et al., 1987) {cooperative} interdependence (Ren et al., 2007) intergroup comparison (Tu & Terry, 2000)

Common Bond Theory (people’s attachments to individual group members)

social interaction (Cartwright & Zander, 1953) {exchange of} personal information (Collins & Miller, 1994) personal attraction through similarity (Ren et al., 2007)

[.] Chapter 2.3 describes a Theory of Reciprocation, originating from behavioral science: “In the case of common bond there is direct reciprocity, and in the case of a common identity there is general reciprocity. … Social psychologists have found that the urge to reciprocate is deeply ingrained (Cialdini, 2001). … Voting on web sites is sometimes done in the context of reciprocity (Dellaroca et al, 2004). … Networks of reciprocity are highly motivating, and encourage participants to maintain an awareness of the community that surrounds it (Sadlon et al, 2008). A community designed on the basis of common identity is said to be more stable when compared to a community designed on the basis of a common bond  (Ren et al., 2007).”

[?] Does this mean that personal relations are more important for / more effective in group decision making than relations between groups, that is from a ‘group-as-a-whole perspective’ ?

[.] Sankaranarayanan continues: “According to Milgram (Milgram, 1997) and Zajonc (Zajonc, 1986), visually representing people in an online group help people form personal attachment to each other even without communicating with each other. Visualization of actual communication flow among community members can create bonds between friends of friends by helping people fill in gaps (Ren et al, 2007). Making contributions visible in a community as a whole leads to some extent of recognition of the member’s contributions. So visualizing reciprocal and non reciprocal relationships might help members to recognize their current position in the community.”

[?] Could we extrapolate and hypothesize that an ‘awareness of ones position in a group’ would make the group a better decision making unit as a whole?

[?] Would visualization of individual reciprocity make group decision making more effective?

[?] Would visualization of inter-group reciprocity make group decision making more effective?

[.] 2.5 Focusses on social visualization {as a tool for the ‘group-anthropologist’} : ” … Visually representing information enables users to see data in context, observe patterns and make comparisons (Heer et al, 2009).  Visualization techniques are important aids in helping users and researchers understand social and conversation patterns in online interactions (Viegas et al, 2004). … Social visualization is defined as the visualization of social data for social purposes” (Karahalios & Viegas, 2006). Social visualization is a sub category of information visualization and focuses on people, groups, conversational patterns, interactions with each other and relationships with each other and with their community.”

[-] I wonder why the final intervention was choosen. I seams to suffer information overload (despite earlier notion of visual overload, a common side effect -as stated- due to a vast amount of related subjects).

[?] What workaround would visualization of reciprocity have to offer, when avoiding visual complexity?