Glacial Erratics

EugeneEricKim, the other cofounder and remaining director of BlueOxen, has spent the last few days hosting a workshop on patterns of collaboration. I was unable to attend, but, along with several other people, watched from the sides through a wiki and email list.    (41H)

On the first day of the workshop, the participants developed a definition of collaboration (at Collab:Collaboration). Members of the email list were asked to introduce themselves and comment on the proceedings. I combined an introduction and a response to the definition in one mail message that I include here for the record. This version is edited to add some WikiWords. The original message is archived.    (41I)

This will be review for some of you, but it was a nice review for me.    (41J)

Hello, I'm ChrisDent. Sorry for this late message and sorry for missing the gathering. I had some timing conflicts and more importantly a distinct lack of funds.    (41K)

I'll begin with a bit of intro and then move on to some comments on the discovered definition of Collaboration (which I like). I've discovered this messasge is quite long. I seem to be using it for a bit of mental cleanout. Thanks for the opportunity and sorry for the length.    (41L)

I've been interacting (sometimes collaborating) with Eugene off and on in various capacities for about 3 years. We encountered one another in mailing list communities associated with Doug Engelbart's Bootstrap organization (sometimes known as Alliance, sometimes known as Institute).    (41M)

Around then, I had started a masters program in Information Science at IndianaUniversity. I had left a technical leadership role at a mid-sized ISP to fill up some of the holes in my brain. In my first class I was introduced to Engelbart, attracted to his ideas of augmentation, co-evolution and the necessity of collaborative effort to solve wicked problems. I started scrounging around for ways to know more.    (41N)

My first project of note in the IS program[1] laid the groundwork for a continuing sense that the foundation of a good collaborative toolset is the ability to access and reuse existing information. By access I don't mean find; I mean having a graspable handle and being aware of how things are being grasped.    (41O)

My second project[2] was based on some of Engelbart's ideas but explored them through the writings of other authors. I was trying to describe a productive "using" rather than "partnering" or "communicating" interaction with computers. I didn't quite hit it, and I've since discovered much more fodder in the notions of embodied and situated cognition combined with a bit of phenomenology[3] that await a book or PhD? thesis if I can find the steam.    (41P)

I came to the Bootstrap mailing lists with these things in my head. Eugene and I noticed each other as people who thought interesting things and often backed up our noodling with experiments or tools. Around the time Eugene was thinking about creating Blue Oxen, I was looking for a way to get some credits to finish up my degree without taking yet another boring class. We concocted an internship that turned me, with time, into a cofounder of the organization. Eugene and I had met in person only once.    (41Q)

Eugene and I spent several months fleshing out what's since become TheBlueOxenWay. The same semester I did the internship I was taking an extremely hard core practical class in software design patterns[4]. I suspect that class had some impact on the direction we chose. The class, as described in the referenced document, is one of the most significant collaborative events of my life. Another is the interactions I had with the team I worked with before going back to school.    (41R)

Both cases strongly support the idea that a shared goal is a very important part of successful collaboration.    (41S)

I never gained the traction with BlueOxen that I needed to feel successful. In part this was because I was spread too thin, with too many other obligations. I part this was because Eugene and I demonstrated another important aspect of collaboration: while we had a fairly robust shared language and to some degree a quite robust shared understanding, the details of our shared goals were not as well understood as they could have been. I, at least, found it difficult to get the necessary food out of the shared system.    (41T)

So I've since moved on to other things. I think this has been positive for us both. I hope Eugene agrees. We are exploring more diverse areas now than we might have been otherwise.    (41U)

I continue to work in Blue Oxen related areas: I've been one of the primary authors of PurpleWiki, where I've been able to put some of my hopes for good accessibility, backlinking and transclusion into practice; I regularly contribute to the Collaboration Collaboratory; I hang out on the fringes of events like these and step in when I am able.    (41V)

By day I work as a software developer and communications lubricant for a development team working at Indiana University. There I try to implement the things I've learned and continue to learn about collaboration. The most significant observation there, thus far, is continued proof that transparency in communication combined with diligent archiving and refactoring is big magic in making things better along many dimensions but they are still not enough without a shared commitment to a shared goal.    (41W)

I'm playing a waiting game for something to crystallize in my brain so I can make a succinct statement of my interests and thus determine a course of doctoral study or career. In the meantime I go to work and do a lot of rock climbing in TheRed.    (41X)

Which leaves me at the definition:    (41Y)

I think this hits it very nicely, the key words being "shared" and "bounded". The people involved all need to know the goal, and there needs to be an understanding that there is an endpoint to the work involved; a point when the participants can say "we're done, we did it."    (420)

This mirrors many of the things I said in a blog entry back in September called "Collaboration Requires Goals"[5]. The conversations (both in person and in email, much of it related to an as yet unreleased Blue Oxen paper) surrounding that document discussed the difference between community building and collaboration. Both are valuable, but they are different.    (421)

An interesting aspect of this definition is how it might impact thoughts about Engelbart's A, B, and C activities[6]. This line:    (422)

Interacting to get smarter might be called a C-activity (improving the improvement process) while interacting in order to prepare for an exam could be called B (improving your capability, making yourself better at calculus tests) or A (doing calculus) depending on your point of view.    (424)

The last 3 years have demonstrated that it is difficult to collaborate on things Engelbartian and feel any sense of motion. Perhaps it's the nature of the beast? I've often said that things were not properly bounded. Perhaps it is a question of framing: smaller pieces and their associated smaller expectations required.    (425)

Finally, I'm extremely pleased to see that individual intention and commitment has been included in the definition.    (426)

I think it might be an interesting exercise to create names and stories for those styles of interaction that are like collaboration but are missing one or some of the key pieces:    (427)

• shared bounded goal    (428)
• intention    (429)
• commitment    (42A)

The stories might acts as foils that engender more clarity to the definition of collaboration.    (42B)

Another aspect perhaps worth investigating: understanding whether a group is collaborating has much to with the distance from which the activity is viewed and the boundaries of the language used in the activity. Since Eugene likes sports stories so much, I'll use one of those to demonstrate:    (42C)

I went climbing recently with someone I had not climbed with before. I did not know him well, but I had interacted with him somewhat in the climbing gym. From the beginning of our trip, our climbing was successful. We had a good grasp of the language of climbing, both in the literal sense of the words we used to communicate and the movements our bodies used to get up the wall, and we were able to cooperate in the effort of getting someone safely where they want to go. Our time, though, was not immediately comfortably fun.    (42D)

As time passed, we built up a better understanding of one another (there was the mild magic of the small unfolding of test conversation topics to see what avenues of discussion are or are not taboo). We broadened and deepened our shared language away from just climbing into other scenarios. As time passed we became more comfortable with one another, had more fun, and climbed better. The resolution of our shared understanding of our shared goal(s) and its context increased. We were not there just to get up the wall, we were there to have a complete experience.    (42E)

I hope the workshop was valuable for the participants and I hope the discussions continue.    (42F)

[1] Hypertext and Knowledge Enhancement Explores some the history, design goals and failings of hypertext in the context of knowledge as something built from information.    (42G)

[2] The Computer as Tool: From Interaction to Augmentation Eugene cites this paper in his recent A Manifesto For Collaborative Tools.    (42H)

[3] Augury A review of my contributions to a reading group looking for connections between augmentation and embodied cognition.    (42I)

[4] Helium Performance A review of a software design patterns class.    (42J)

[5] Collaboration Requires Goals, an explanation of why WikiWords are good for collaboration.    (42K)

[6] http://www.bootstrap.org/#2B http://www.invisiblerevolution.net/engelbart/glossary/capability_infrastruct.html Some information on A, B and C activities.    (42L)