Co-operation for Networks

by

Stephen Downes took me to task for my suggestion that collaboration was the optimum type of group work in networks:

collaboration means ‘working together’. That’s why you see it in market economies. markets are based on quantity and mass.

cooperation means ’sharing’. That’s why you see it in networks. In networks, the nature of the connection is important; it is not simply about quantity and mass …

You and I are in a network – but we do not collaborate (we do not align ourselves to the same goal, subscribe to the same vision statement, etc), we *cooperate*

I began to see that co-operation makes more sense as the term to describe working together in a networked  and non-directed relationship. So is the distinction important? I think so. Jérôme Delacroix provides another confirmatory post on “co-operation” as the suitable term for what we do in networks [in French]. Jérôme explains why his site is called Cooperatique and not Collaboratique – collaboration happens around some kind of plan or structure, while co-operation presumes the freedom of individuals to join and participate. He also says that co-operation, not collaboration, is a driver of creativity. That’s quite an important distinction when looking at work analysis and design.

Here is my revised table, for the record:

Social tools for networks

by

Effective knowledge sharing is what many organizations do not do well, or as Lew Platt past-CEO of Hewlett-Packard said, “if only HP knew what HP knows, we would be three times more productive”. But HP will never know what the employees of HP know, so wouldn’t it be better to let the workers share what they know in the best way possible? That’s the key benefit of personal knowledge management, in my opinion. If each person can better manage knowledge creation and capture, then it becomes easier to share it.

For example:

Social bookmarks let me tag and search a wide array of bookmarks and by making them public they are shared with others, but through no extra effort on my part.

Writing this blog gives me a knowledge-base of my thoughts which become articles and presentations but in being public I find others who can add to my knowledge. I also make available information and perhaps knowledge that is useful to others.

By posting on Twitter I answer questions, share links and opinions and get to know others with similar interests, with the same effort as chatting in the office but with a much broader reach. On the Net, chance favours the prepared mind.

Just providing access to knowledge creation and capture tools is a relatively easy first step in moving the organization to Enterprise 2.0; an essential step in working in complex networks versus complicated markets. During the initial implementation of these tools, there is no need to talk about collaboration. Many Web 2.0 tools can be sold on their value to the individual. Let collaboration emerge from the individual practices of workers, most of whom want to do a better job anyway.

The powerful aspect of most Web 2.0 tools is that they are designed for knowledge-sharing as well. However, collaboration is difficult with the imposed barriers to communication created by Enterprise 1.0 IT policies. The major obstacle to social learning (and working) today is the IT department and it’s time that management takes back control of information sharing. This post was inspired by Dave Pollard’s practical guide to implementing Web 2.0 which gives more information on how to accomplish this.

The transition to networked accountability

by

At the expense of being repetitive, I keep seeing this same pattern that Tom Haskins got me started on and which he summarized in reading situational responses:

Then I read Charles Jennings’ post on accountability for business results and saw a similar four part process, but Charles shows how the transition from one structure to the next is not linear at all when viewed from the perspective of the two axes of Autonomy & Strategic Alignment.

Charles’ C-Curve is a model in practice, based on his experience as CLO of Reuters. I see a parallel between this migration of the learning and development (L&D) department and the social order necessary to do certain types of group work:

  1. L&D Autonomous = taking action as a Tribe of its own
  2. L&D aligned with organization = coordinated with the Institution
  3. L&D with governance structure = able to work in a cooperative collaborative Market
  4. L&D strategically aligned = a collaborative co-operative member of (a) Network(s)

Note: I’ve re-thought my use of the terms co-operation & collaboration here.

I wonder if this curve describes other departments in different organizations. It is evident that there is greater freedom either as a tribe or in a network, while institutions and markets restrict freedom. Could it also hold that previously tribal organizations (1) may thrive best in networks (because they are used to more freedom) if they can successfully make the transition between the other two stages? I have noticed that it is difficult to convince organizations steeped in the institutional model (2) that the networked model may be better. Those who already have to respond to markets (3) understand the value of networks (4) much better, in my experience.

Learning and Working in Complexity Workshop

by

Over several online and on-site presentations this past year, I’ve noticed a need for organizations to develop practical tools and contextual processes to manage information, knowledge and learning. I am offering a one-day workshop that encapsulates several years of “learning & working on the Web”.

Learning & Working in Complexity Workshop

One day (on-site or online)

Part 1: Overview of issues and forces that are fundamentally changing workplace learning

Part 2: Discussion & Examples from various fields

Part 3: Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) overview

Part 4: Setting up your own PKM system

References:

Skills 2.0 for learning professionals

PKM

Future of Training

Friday’s finds #2

by

I am continuing to learn from Twitter. A real potpourri this past week:

The 140 character limitation of Twitter forced me to reduce the essence of this post to:

When faced with complexity: 1) organize as networks 2) continuously develop emergent practices 3) collaborate around common goals.

Pep rallies and tribalism make little sense in a networked world. via XKCD

“Quote du jour from Umair Haque: Record labels are caught in a prisoners dilemma, and the jailer is the RIAA.” via @dsearls

via @johnt – Enterprise 2.0 Knowledge Management – A Revolution of Knowledge in Three parts

via @statsgirl “poverty is the #1 risk factor for mental illness”

via @denniscallahan 3 reasons to try FriendFeed (I like reasons 2 & 3)

Integrating work support systems

by

Here’s a good article in TrainingZone (behind a free registration firewall) on OD in the 21st Century that describes many of the issues discussed in Training for the 21st Century, but from an organisational development perspective. Anne Marie McEwan describes her work with the Johnson Controls Mobility Network which is for senior IT, HR and Facilities Management executives for exploring the practical implications of global workplace trends:

These busy executives do not have time to keep up with developments. Having researchers source, summarise and contextualise content from the internet is already a benefit. Sessions are informal.

And this sure sounds like the development of emergent practices:

In collaboration with the team, the executive engages in action learning and critical reflection of the external environment and internal structures, systems and processes. New knowledge, frameworks and tools the support team members introduce, in a just-in-time way, are of course valuable.

However, Anne Marie notes:

In the author’s experience, functional walls between HR, IT and FM are as strong as they ever were and this will threaten enterprise viability.

It’s obvious that the same workplace issues are being faced by HR, IT, OD, KM and T&D tribes departments and that similar strategies are being co-developed in these fields. Given my multi-faceted consulting work, I would even consider myself a peripheral member of all of these communities and would now include Marketing.

Reflecting on my last post on working together it becomes clear to me that using cross-functional teams is not enough for Net Work. We really need to get away from our self-imposed tribes and adopt network thinking and practices.

Working Together

by

Tom Haskins has presented an excellent series of posts on complexity, work and collaboration, comparing aspects of the Cynefin and TIMN frameworks. As I thought about what Tom has written I saw one more column that could be added to his comparison, provided by Shawn at Anecdote, and that is how we can best work together at different levels of complexity.

Even though all levels of complexity exist in our world, more of our work (especially knowledge-intensive work) deals with complex problems, whether they be social, environmental or technological. As can be seen in the table below, complex environments & problems are best addressed when we organize as networks; our work evolves around developing emergent practices; and we collaborate to achieve our goals. As Shawn’s post shows, coordination, cooperation and collaboration are not the same thing.

Working Together
Complexity (Cynefin) Social (TIMN) Practices Group Work
Chaotic Tribal Novel Action
Simple Tribal + Institutional Best Coordination
Complicated Tribal + Institutional + Markets Good Collaboration
Complex Tribal + Institutional + Markets + Networks Emergent Cooperation

I’m putting this table up because it provides a quick view of why we have to change how we teach, train and work. Ask any organization how many of their problems are complex and how important it is to address these. Then find out how social networking is supported and encouraged. Ask how emergent practices are developed and whether anyone actually monitors the process or captures learning that enables emergence. Finally look at whether groups merely co-ordinate activities or perhaps co-operate and if there is real collaboration. As Shawn writes:

Collaboration works well for complex situations because the style of working collaboratively matches the nature of the issues that complex situations pose. Complexity is unpredictable, and collaborating is adaptable; complexity is messy – it’s difficult to work out the question, let alone the answer – and collaborating involves bringing together a diversity of people and talents to improvise and test possible approaches, all learning as you go. Complexity offers unique and novel conundrums, and collaboration draws on a deep foundation of trust to that fosters creativity and delivers innovations.

This is one more reason to consider a wirearchical management framework built on mutual trust.

ATMC – Providing Excellent Training in a Tough Economy

by

The Automotive Training Managers Council (ATMC) annual conference is online and open to members and guests this year. ATMC is focused on the “exchange of training ideas and strategies helpful to both technical and sales/marketing training professionals”. The theme for the conference, to be held on Thursday, 28 May 2009, is Providing Excellent Training in a Tough Economy.

Here’s the schedule (Eastern Time Zone GMT -4):

12:30 PM: Welcome and Brief ATMC Update
12:45 PM: “Training and the Networked Workplace” by Harold Jarche – Workplace Learning Strategist, jarche.com
1:45 PM: “Service Training at Daimler Trucks North America” by Brian Stowe – Manager, Training Development, Daimler Trucks North America
2:45 PM: A topic related to delivering video on the Web by Paul Louwers – President & CEO, AVI (Automotive Video, Inc.).
3:15 PM: A topic related to finding grant funding for training by Jeff Miller – Partner, Incentis Group
3:45 PM: Rapid Networking.

Free conference registration is now available.

Friday’s Finds #1

by

In an attempt to make my finds on Twitter more explicit, this may be the start of regular posts on some of the things I learned this past week (weekly seems better than monthly).

Numbers & Measurement

From Charles Green at The Trusted Advisor:

If you can measure it, you can manage it; if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it; if you can’t manage it, it’s because you can’t measure it; and if you managed it, it’s because you measured it.

Every one of those statements is wrong. But business eats it up. And it’s easy to see why.

…

The ubiquity of measurement inexorably leads people to mistake the measures themselves for the things they were intended to measure.

More on meaningless numbers used to measure things, from Dave Snowden.

We face the challenge of meeting increasing legitimate demands for social services with decreasing real time resources. That brings with it questions of rationing, control and measurement which, however well intentioned, conspire to make the problem worse rather than better. For me this all comes back to one fundamental error, namely we are treating all the processes of government as if they were tasks for engineers rather than a complex problem of co-evolution at multiple levels (individuals, the community, the environment etc.).

Open Source

David Eaves discusses how being open, like embracing open source software, is becoming important for economic development:

Vancouver is not broken – but it could always be improved, and  twitter confirms a suspicion I have: that programmers and creative workers in all industries are attracted to places that are open because it allows them to participate in improving where they live. Having a city that is attractive to great software programmers is a strategic imperative for Vancouver. Where there are great software programmers there will be big software companies and start ups.

Via @SoulSoup is the story of DimDim (free, open source, web conferencing platform) [dead link] making CNET’s Webware Top 100 for 2009 [dead link]. Open source is moving up the software stack, first with operating systems, then general applications and now richer applications. Software vendors have to be continuously moving into higher value applications to remain relevant. This is a natural industry evolution that few purchasers, especially in government, understand.

Learning & Working

Rob Paterson:

In 1996, aged 45, I was on a train with Fraser Mustard. We were returning from a trip to Queens University in Kingston,  where he had been giving a master class to  a group of senior people in the Canadian Government service. I had been working for him as an adviser for about a year. Working with him was the most exciting thing that had ever happened to me. I asked him if he would consider taking me on full time.

“You are an adult now Rob. Time to go out on your own.” He paused and then added. “I am tired. You cannot rely on me for your life.”

The greatest advice I have ever had given by the greatest man I have ever encountered.

Via @changedotorg –  “In fact, if you look at what’s really happening right now in the nonprofit sector, you’ll find several reasons NOT to go back to school and focus on what organizations are really looking for in potential candidates.” When a Degree isn’t enough [dead link]

Charles Jennings:

There’s enough evidence now to show that Instructor-Led Training is not effective as an approach for the majority of employee development. ILT may be helpful for some change management and big-picture ‘concept’ development, but it is demonstrably the least effective and certainly the least efficient approach for most learning that’s required.

On curriculum

by

I noticed today something that reinfornced my opinion of education curriculum. As you can see from my last post, there’s a production of My Fair Lady at the high school for the next three nights, plus an in-school presentation this morning. Our son came home from the session today and after an extended long weekend of practices he’s exhausted, but happy. He took a nap and is now preparing for this evening’s performance. He has a lot of lines plus many songs, dances and stage movements to memorize and perform.

There is an English assignment due for tomorrow that requires a re-write of an ending to a book. This is similar to the re-writes of several plays he has done and is something he can do and do well. However, he has almost no time to get it done. He will get something completed, but I’m sure it won’t be his best work or a great learning experience. Of course, he is presented with no options other than doing the prescribed task. There is no flexibility in the system for anything like prior learning assessment or objective based learning where achievement lets you move on to other things. This is the bully of curriculum.

As I was thinking about this in relation to my work I thought of the best way that I could describe curriculum to someone who had never heard of the term:

Curriculum: an outdated broadcast model for knowledge-sharing, based on the presumption of a shortage of information, limited social connections and finite knowledge boundaries.