Revisiting Large-Scale Disruptive Collaboration in the Age of Social Media

Copyright © 2013 Azad Madni and Ann Majchrzak

Revisiting Large-Scale Disruptive Collaboration in the Age of Social Media

Azad M. Madni Ann MajchrzakViterbi School of Engineering Marshall School of Business

University of Southern California University of Southern California

2013 CSSE Annual Research ReviewUniversity of Southern California

March 14, 2013


Outline

■ Disruptive Collaboration■ Impact of Social Media■ Transdisciplinary Collaboration ■ Complexity-Driven Tradeoffs■ Provocative Conclusions


Large-Scale Disruptive Collaboration

■ Occurs when a large number of people work together to develop new ideas that change business models, sources of revenues, product trajectories, and technology roadmaps.

■ Invariably implies “paradigm shifts” cloud computing: from in-house IT infrastructure to “purchase by

the yard” agile development using SaaS: from in-house SW development to

outside SaaS capabilities leverage (buy SW, in-house crew provide “glue”)

■ Need more of it!


Social Media Proliferation Affecting Nature of Collaboration■ Twitter■ LinkedIn/Facebook-like Social Media■ Chatter■ Skype Screenshare / GotoMeeting■ Kickstarter■ MetadataTagging/pinning


Virtual/Hybrid?

Completely Virtual

Person Next Door

Entirely Hybrid


Multiple Collaboration Platforms


Traditional Teams No Longer Idea Sources ■ Crowdsourcing

information acquisition e.g., Goldcorp (find gold deposits by making property info public)

■ Open Innovation / Expert Sourcing Idea generation and evolution attributed to Chesbrough, UC Berkeley no longer develop ideas in-house; develop ideas collaboratively with “strangers” e.g., buy / license inventions and processes e.g., expose own inventions through licensing, spin-offs e.g., InnoCentive (global web community for open innovation)


Social Media Provides More Opportunities for Transdisciplinary Collaboration

adapted from Madni, A.M. “Transdisciplinarity: Reaching beyond Disciplines to Find Connections,” Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2007, pp. 1-11.

Intradisciplinary Multidisciplinary Interdisciplinary Transdisciplinary

Collaboration Scope

Among individuals within a discipline

Among individuals from different disciplines

Among disciplines through collaborators

Across and beyond disciplines without regard to disciplinary boundaries

Specific Focus Deeper understanding within a research field (e.g., quantum physics within physics)

Achieving compatibility in complex problem solving through collaboration

Creation of integrative solutions potentially resulting in mutual enrichment of disciplines

Finding hidden connections among knowledge elements from different disciplines

Key Characteristics

Generally, study same “research objects,” (e.g., multiple branches of modern physics)

Tend to have methodologies in common

Tight communications Mostly speak a common

language Add to the body of

knowledge (BOK) of a branch/ discipline

Harmonize multiple, occasionally incompatible aspects

Integration limited to linking research results

Susceptible to misunderstanding (specialized languages)

Collaborators occasionally unsure about final resolution

Development of shared concepts, methods, epistemologies for explicit information exchange and integration

Can produce an entirely new discipline

•Specialization causes knowledge fragmentation, occasionally contradictory knowledge

Challenge the norm and generate options that appear to violate convention

Look at problems from a discipline-neutral perspective

Employ themes to conduct research and build curricula

Redefine disciplinary boundaries and interfaces

Research Types

Comparison Factors


Features of Transdisciplinary Collaboration

■ Goal is to work together to generate and evolve ideas and find creative solutions that transcend disciplinary boundaries

■ Participants come together from the very start to communicate and exchange ideas

■ Participants contribute their knowledge and expertise, but approaches and solutions are determined collectively

■ Participants DO NOT develop their own answers to a problem before collaboration


Energizing Transdisciplinary Collaboration

■ Ask Questions that cut across Disciplinary Boundaries■ Encourage “ fluidity” and “serendipity”■ Make assumptions explicit to overcome apparent

differences■ Set constraints aside to foster creative option

generation■ Actively reach out to other disciplines to make

connections■ Introduce a new metaphor, change level of

abstraction, share a picture or graphic to enhance sense-making

■ Focus on Idea / Problem / Goal, not Disciplinary Expertise

■ Multi-layered governance


Summary

■ Large-Scale Disruptive Collaboration is: Ubiquitous Multi-layered Complex combinations of formal and informal networks Ad hoc and Unbounded, as well as Stable and Bounded Mix of volunteerism and responsibility Mix of creativity and execution


New forms of Disruptive Collaboration require managing Trade-offs/Tensions

■ Trade-off #1: Privacy vs Transparency■ Trade-off #2: Squandering vs Withholding Resources■ Trade-off #3: Risk Increase vs Decrease by Going Virtual ■ Trade-off #4: Governance vs Chaos in Collective Creativity■ Trade-off #5: Stable leadership vs Temps in Governance■ Trade-off #6: Platform Design vs Need for Adaptability


Privacy vs Transparency

■ Compromise between transparency and privacy■ Key considerations include trust, familiarity, need for

disclosure e.g., how do you determine average salary or age of a

group without explicitly having group members provide their salaries or ages?

This can be done by using secure multi-party computation approach


Squandering vs Withholding Resources

■ Need to avoid resource imbalance■ Resources are not just monetary■ They include attention, willingness, information validation time■ Throwing more resources at a bad idea or extraneous activity

is just as bad as providing inadequate resources for a good idea or needed activity

Focus should be on what resources it takes to evolve a good idea


Risk Increase vs Decrease by Going Virtual

■ Virtual collaboration reduces some risks while increasing others

■ People come together to innovate and collectively lower risk■ Individuals can also “shut down” when they have to perform in

front of others in the virtual environment■ Collaboratively innovating is risky for some people

Potential solutions include anonymity in specific contexts, assignment of different roles to collaborators


Risks


Governance vs Chaos in Collective Creativity■ Need to control flexibility while encouraging creativity■ This is a very real tension in collaboration and VOs

Focus on targeted, affordable flexibility5. Enabling Technology

1. Value Proposition or Artifact 2. Collective Wisdom

3. Governance4. Process

Layers of Participation

Goal Alignment

Distributed Leader Roles

-CollaborativeProcesses

Disruptive CollaborativeInnovation

Collaborative Technology Functionality


Layers of Participation

Lurkers

Knowledge Contributors (“add only”)

Knowledge Minor League Editors

Knowledge Refactorers*

Site Evangelists

1

100…1,000

* “Refactoring is the process of rewriting written material to improve its readability or structure, with the explicit purpose of keeping its meaning or behavior.”


Stable Leadership vs Temporary Governance

■ Context determines how this tradeoff is made■ Concept of leadership role is key■ Need a fluid way to go from stable core leadership to organic

volunteers temporarily performing in governance roles

Disaggregate leadership roles; allocate leadership characteristics to these roles; assign agents with specific

leadership characteristics to these roles; increase flexibility


Platform Design vs Need for Adaptability

■ Platform standardizes development and reduces development risks

■ An over-specified platform will suffer from a lack of evolvability and may have to be discarded

■ Finding the “sweet spot” is a challenge and a high payoff research problem

Incorporate real options in platform design to exploit potential breakthroughs w/o increasing development risks


Product Platform Generation and Evolution


Provocative Conclusions

■ Focus on idea generation and evolution enabled by technology, people and organizations, not view each factor in isolation

■ Adopt ideas as the unit of analysis, not exclusively focus on resolution of conflicts among collaborators

■ Exploit context to rapidly evolve ideas, not impose constraints to prematurely prune them

■ Focus on collaboration behavior, not virtual organization structure■ View organizations as organisms with attributes (e.g., people, culture,

motivation) that can be exploited, not as a constraining function■ Focus on maintaining requisite variety over time, not just “success”


References

■ Madni, A.M. “Transdisciplinarity: Reaching Beyond Disciplines to Find Connections,” Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2007, pp. 1-11.

■ Majchrzak, A., More, P.H. B., Faraj, S. Transcending Knowledge Differences in Cross-Functional Teams, Organization Science, July/August 2012, vol. 23, no. 4, 951-970


Thank You!

Documents

Revisiting Large-Scale Disruptive Collaboration in the Age of Social Media