Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Thinking about the Invisible Infrastructure (Note:Thoughts from a three years ago working in a corporation on processes)

Do people tend to undervalue support infrastructures? Do they take for granted, ignore, or in some case deny the ‘realities’ underlying their core business? I think so. I also think that when initiating change in an organization one inevitably has to deal consciously with both existing and desired infrastructure arrangements. This becomes a problem, however, if the default tendency is not to see or consciously value the infrastructure that supports behavior and the need for systemic change. Infrastructure can be understood as physical (buildings, machines, etc.) as well as dynamic (processes, procedures & activities).

Awareness of infrastructure can be seen as similar to awareness of the self. Using the body as a metaphor for the organization can be helpful in framing the basic issue. It is common knowledge that caring for the body, paying attention to diet, getting exercise and reducing stress on the body are all important skills and practices to develop. It is also common for people to not pay attention to these issues. That is, bad habits, lack of attention, or a too busy schedule often block our intention to pay attention. The underlying support structures of the body are taken for granted, not consciously attended to, and generally ‘invisible’. Until, of course, we get sick. Then we are forced to ‘see’ our body and to face the issues.

In many cases we try to fix the problem in a way that doesn’t force a change in our behavior. For systemic infrastructure problems with our bodies (for example, chronic illnesses) this simply doesn’t work. What we need to do is change our behavior in a way that allows for regular sustained attention to our behavior. For many of us this is a very difficult practice. It forces us to live with ourselves in a very unfamiliar way. It forces changes in our schedules, in our habitual ways of obtaining gratification (for example, eating candy or fast food), and in our normal way of thinking. Changes like this generally upset our normal way of being. This is a very difficult problem to deal with – but as people who have gone to the edge with illness know – it must be done if one is to live well.
Organizations have to do no less.

If the premise of the invisible infrastructure in relation to the body is accepted then it is reasonable to infer it might exist in terms of physical artifacts, systems, and processes as well. The point I am making is that if we have predictable habitual ways of dealing with our own personal infrastructure elements then it is reasonable to assume there will be some carryover into the way our work culture (and especially our leaders) deal with collective processes and systems. My fear is that they are ignored until there is a problem and then we either over react or deny that the problem really goes to the infrastructure level.


Individuals > Culture > Processes > Systems > Individuals

A further difficulty is that changes in group behavior (or, more commonly, lack of change in group behavior) is attributed not to the automated and invisible nature of underlying structures and processes but to some nebulous realm characterized variously as organizational culture, collective attitude, people’s unwillingness or ‘fear’ of change, or some other unoperationalized and poorly understood concept or theory.

Systems and processes are intended to support people and/or to extend their reach, their vision, and their will. When systems and processes become a part of collective action or practice they enter that realm of invisibility that can make working with them consciously very difficult.

Indications or examples of this kind of undervaluing are a lack of attention and valuing of specific infrastructure elements. Infrastructure elements comprise all sorts of systems. Technical information systems like telephones, ERP systems, personal computers, computer networks, internet service providers, etc. are all eventually relegated to the zone of invisibility. They become consciously important only when they break. Other, softer services, are also implicated. Human resource functions, accounting functions, janitorial functions, and other support processes are often ignored unless a breakdown occurs.

The implications of this behavior for learning are significant. When we change (either as individuals or as organizations) we are afforded the opportunity to pay attention to, reassess, or re-value some aspect of our practice – our behavior. However, if it is a foregone conclusion that large regions of our practice are ‘invisible’ then our effectiveness will, ipso facto, be diminished. If this concept is, as I am asserting, ‘scalable’, then our problems for organizational change and learning are equally bleak.

When an organization is experiencing rapid intense change it is exactly the time that attention and value need to be given to the ‘invisible’ support structures that sustain normal practice. Unfortunately people may be so busy putting out fires, reacting to external events, or thoughtlessly dismantling the infrastructure that does exist before they actually think about, plan, and implement mechanisms for keeping the infrastructure in a healthy balance between conscious care-taking and unconscious dependence. The surprising fact about the organization’s ‘invisible infrastructure’ is that there are people tasked with maintaining and improving these functions – that is, there is a group that is daily making visible that which is invisible to many in the organization (and especially the leadership). Certainly part of the solution is keeping these people at the center of change initiatives, strategy development, and assessment practices. However, it is often the case that these people are not consulted at all. I am referring specifically to information technology staff, customer service representatives, billing clerks, inventory personnel, line workers and supervisors, etc.

The fact that we unconsciously depend on so many things in our day to day living is important to understand. In most cases this unconsciousness makes us more efficient – it allows for multitasking and economies of scale (driving and thinking and carrying on a conversation at the same time). But this unconscious dependence can be dangerous.

What we do when we want to mitigate or lessen the effects of our unconscious dependence is hook up feedback systems. We wire our environment to remind us when we have crossed some threshold of performance (for example, red lights on a flight instrument panel).
What is necessary in the organization capable of adaptive change is the recognition of this issue in general and then a specific effort to identify those crucial aspects of the infrastructure that need to be paid attention to. That attention is achieved through the development and implementation of feedback mechanisms.

Developing appropriated feedback loops, however, is easier said than done. The requirements of a system or organization that is managed by metrics are many. To begin with the organization has to develop an awareness of the place and importance of all its major processes – core business processes, leadership processes and support processes all have to be understood and valued in conscious demonstrable ways. Then the hard work of specifying criteria from which to index threshold breaking information has to be engaged. It is here that dialogue, trust, & collaboration skills need to be practiced. If major constituents of infrastructure processes and functions aren’t involved in this ongoing dialogue the ‘invisibility’ of the fundamentals will persist.

A major focus of best practices firms is on management efforts that distinguish between core business activities, support activities, and leadership activities. This practice has helped decision makers focus on the true object of their strategy (the core business). Unfortunately, a lack of attention to support and leadership structures and processes hobbles their ability to execute the strategy. Execution is the Achilles heel of a strategy run organization – if we don’t have the internal knowledge of congruent processes and systems to execute we can’t grow, compete, or survive. If we don’t pay attention to the ‘invisible infrastructure’ we can’t learn from our mistakes.

Friday, April 16, 2004

Chronotopes & Asynchronous Dialogue

I have long been a student of Jay Lemke's writing and recently came across a paper talking about the idea of a 'chronotope'. Or, as I understand it, a socially constructed map of time. This map exists in conjunction with our spatial navigations through life and changes as our navigations change. Lemke says "Chronotopes describe the typical trajectories and pacings of our traversals through and across places." I think there are some significant implications for the design of asynchronous technologies and methods here.

A big issue I am running into in my work is the pacing of conversations across gaps in time. This is not unlike what happens with IM or IRC when many people are clogging the time bottleneck. In asynchronous dialogue we have a more spacious bottleneck but we also have the problem of relevance and memory.

I have been confused and perplexed by time for a long time - certainly it has become more of an issue in working with asynchronous collaboration models. Lemke's work hints at some important new understandings. He says "We make space in time" - now if I am reading him correctly he also says that our conception of time is a function of our spatial relations - so, we have this interesting reflexive feedback thing happening when we experience either a time or a place.

So what are the implications for virtual space? Lemke talks a bit about that but uses notions of virtuality that I am not too familiar with. To me it is enough to identify a website as a virtual space. Of course the design of the website includes multiple virtual spaces and those too have their unique properties.

Here is a great paragraph from his paper:“How do we make a world from many places? Lived worlds are not the worlds of official cartography. Like the original inhabitants of Australia, we make our worlds along tracks: the course from place to place to place, scene to scene to scene. On many scales. Not just the tracks through our neighborhood or town, walked or driven daily and weekly. The tracks we walk again and again, or once only, through our school or office, through our house or apartment, and from one book to the next, one website to another. Our spaces and places are visual and ambulatory, tactile and auditory; they are integrated, cumulated or catenated, collected, and by not by sequence alone. The sequentiality of a track defines a scale on which we must leave one place behind to come to the next. But on shorter scales, we can see many places at once, hear other places than the one we see, array the micro-resources of place and re-make the space of that place through our use of it.”
I will make a part II to this post!

Chris

Thursday, April 15, 2004

Asynchronous Dialogue and "Adult Learning"?

It occurred to me today that the notion that adults learn differently than children is quite a popular notion. I thought a bit about that and wondered what exactly is all that different. My initial thoughts seem a bit cynical but I am going to go with them for now.

It seems to me that the big difference is the person's relation to the context. That is, adults typically have a more agentive (if that's a word?) role vis a vis their context . They have more freedom. Consequently they have more choices in terms of what they attend to. So in designing adult learning experiences we have to be more mindful of their agentive response - the choices they make to attend or not attend to what is happening.

Dialogue doesn't have much to do with this except that people have to have 'skin in the game' as they say. They have to be interested, involved, and participating. That is also true of learning for both children and adults.

Dialogue is a goal of education I'd say. Crafting activities, strategies, plans, and intentions for getting people to the point of learning is the technique that we use to start the learning process. These things in and of themselves are not the learning or the learning process. They are precursors. Adult learning theory from a simplistic perspective is about a different toolkit of precursors. Dialogue amongst children and adults is still dialogue. Dialogue is a quality of linguistic interaction not of the ontogenetic development of its practitioners.

Saturday, April 10, 2004

What is dialogue?

Often the subject of dialogue begins with the dialogue at the beginning or as the beginning of some process. The process is a conversation or interaction leading to some sort of decision, understanding, or new awareness. I want to look at dialogue through the other end of the telescope for a minute. That is, what about that kind of talk that accompanies shared practice?

Shared practice assumes some grasp of common purpose. Common purpose assumes some degree of common understanding.

It seems to me that when people have a common goal or purpose they automatically align their behaviors such that common understanding is developed. This seems obvious. When I go to the grocery store I feel a sense of common purpose. We all know why we are there. The store has a meaning for us that is, at some level, common. And so on with a myriad of other practice and activities.

What we do together we begin to understand together. One of the results of this is that it is very possible, and quite common actually, for people to develop their understanding of the world primarily from the set of shared practices that they engage in. Television has become a potent force in shaping the common understanding. We share a practice and we come to a common understanding.

So we see that shared practices have the effect of creating a common purpose. A common purpose also affords a common understanding. Or more concisely: practice > purpose > understanding

The role of dialogue is seen throughout the process of shared practice, realizing a common purpose, and developing a common understanding. That is - the thing that goes on between us (mostly unconscious) in a shared practice is dialogue. Other words or phrases for this are: 'just talking', 'gossiping', 'small talk, etc. I think this counts as dialogue because it is generative. This talking generates and maintains a kind of carrier wave of understanding that makes our shared practice meaningful.

I realize there are numerous papers, books, and models that define and classify dialogue in a number of ways. Certainly I am familiar with and agree with Bohemian dialogue. The work of Isaacs (Isaacs, W., 1999. Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. Doubleday: New York) and others illuminate the effectiveness and power of dialogue defined more closely than I am doing here.

Where I do get into step with Isaacs and others is in the notion that dialogue is especially important because it can catalyze or 'begin' a process to develop a shared practice. In purely instrumental terms we can have a dialogue about "starting a business", "creating a school" or any of a number of other things. In other words it might look like this: dialogue > practice > purpose > understanding

This makes sense to me. What begins to make less sense is treating dialogue as if it were a practice. In other words creating scenarios like: dialogue > purpose > understanding or, dialogue > understanding. This, of course, is every teacher’s fantasy!

The final iteration is: dialogue > dialogue

When that shared practice is defined as "developing a common understanding" we are truly in the realm of the weird. This is so because we are now, in Bateson's terms "Meta" to the thing we started talking about. If, as I maintain, that dialogue is a secondary effect or result of our common practice and if it is true that we can create common practice by learning to use this secondary effect. Then I may also say that we can create understanding using dialogue.

That is, dialogue can generate the conditions necessary for developing common understanding. Which is not a new thought of course - it’s just that I am beginning to work out why it is true for myself.

The understanding that develops from the practice of dialogue is complex. By complex I mean multi-faceted, unpredictable, and dynamic. More on that later no doubt.

Creative Dialogue for a Common Purpose - What does that mean?

Often the subject of dialogue begins with the dialogue at the beginning or as the beginning of some process. The process is a conversation or interaction leading to some sort of decision, understanding, or new awareness. I want to look at dialogue through the other end of the telescope for a minute. That is, what about that kind of talk that accompanies shared practice?

Shared practice assumes some grasp of common purpose. Common purpose assumes some degree of common understanding.

It seems to me that when people have a common goal or purpose they automatically align their behaviors such that common understanding is developed. This seems obvious. When I go to the grocery store I feel a sense of common purpose. We all know why we are there. The store has a meaning for us that is, at some level, common. And so on with a myriad of other practice and activities.

What we do together we begin to understand together. One of the results of this is that it is very possible, and quite common actually, for people to develop their understanding of the world primarily from the set of shared practices that they engage in. Television has become a potent force in shaping the common understanding. We share a practice and we come to a common understanding.

So we see that shared practices have the effect of creating a common purpose. A common purpose also affords a common understanding. Or more concisely: practice > purpose > understanding

The role of dialogue is seen throughout the process of shared practice, realizing a common purpose, and developing a common understanding. That is - the thing that goes on between us (mostly unconscious) in a shared practice is dialogue. Other words or phrases for this are: 'just talking', 'gossiping', 'small talk, etc. I think this counts as dialogue because it is generative. This talking generates and maintains a kind of carrier wave of understanding that makes our shared practice meaningful.

I realize there are numerous papers, books, and models that define and classify dialogue in a number of ways. Certainly I am familiar with and agree with Bohemian dialogue. The work of Isaacs (Isaacs, W., 1999. Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. Doubleday: New York) and others illuminate the effectiveness and power of dialogue defined more closely than I am doing here.

Where I do get into step with Isaacs and others is in the notion that dialogue is especially important because it can catalyze or 'begin' a process to develop a shared practice. In purely instrumental terms we can have a dialogue about "starting a business", "creating a school" or any of a number of other things. In other words it might look like this: dialogue > practice > purpose > understanding

This makes sense to me. What begins to make less sense is treating dialogue as if it were a practice. In other words creating scenarios like: dialogue > purpose > understanding or, dialogue > understanding. This, of course, is every teacher’s fantasy!

The final iteration is: dialogue > dialogue

When that shared practice is defined as "developing a common understanding" we are truly in the realm of the weird. This is so because we are now, in Bateson's terms "Meta" to the thing we started talking about. If, as I maintain, that dialogue is a secondary effect or result of our common practice and if it is true that we can create common practice by learning to use this secondary effect. Then I may also say that we can create understanding using dialogue.

That is, dialogue can generate the conditions necessary for developing common understanding. Which is not a new thought of course - it’s just that I am beginning to work out why it is true for myself.

The understanding that develops from the practice of dialogue is complex. By complex I mean multi-faceted, unpredictable, and dynamic. More on that later no doubt.

Creative Dialogue for a Common Purpose - What does that mean?

It seems to me that when people have a common goal or purpose they automatically align their behaviors such that common understanding is developed. This seems obvious. When I go to the grocery store I feel a sense of common purpose. We all know why we are there. The store has a meaning for us that is, at some level, common. And so on with a myriad of other practice and activities. What we do together we begin to understand together. One of the results of this is that it is very possible, and quite common actually, for people to develop their understanding of the world primarily from the set of shared practices that they engage in. Television has become a potent force in shaping the common understanding.

So we see that shared practices have the effect of creating a common purpose. A common purpose also affords a common understanding. The role of dialogue is seen throughout the process of shared practice, realizing a common purpose, and developing a common understanding. Dialogue is especially important because it can catalyze or 'begin' a process to develop a shared practice. That is, dialogue can generate the conditions necessary for developing common understanding.

The understanding that develops from the practice of dialogue complex. By complex I mean multi-facted, unpredictable, and dynamic.

Friday, April 09, 2004

What is asynchronous moderation?

I make a distinction between 'moderation' as described by bulletin board moderators and others treating the large scale management of threads and posts (or even the description of 'moderator' as a kind of referee in some sort of a debate or structured conversations). My understanding of the term in the case of asynchronous dialogue comes from the need to 'meta' observe what is going on as well as help with issues of scale and load of information.

The first 'moderator' of a text is any person reading it. If there are multiple persons reading a text with the purpose of generating a dialogue then a 'Moderator' (capital M) is needed to help gather and integrate the multiple perspectives. Each perspective or post is a 'text'. It is also read by multiple persons and it becomes an object for the Moderator's perception. This Moderator's perception is a meta perspective. This is not to say that any reader of all (or almost all) the texts is not also engaged in the meta-perspective - just that there is a defined role of Moderator that exists just for that purpose. The Moderator does not create original texts - or source texts - just meta-texts based on that primary work.

All this is still pretty meaningless unless we define the purpose or aim of the group having this distributed conversation. That is where the value of asynchronous dialogue becomes apparent.

If it is important that others review and critique my thinking or my feelings for whatever reason then the asynchronous dialogue format makes sense. Further - if there is a constraint on my relationships such that time and space intrude then doing this makes even more sense.

The Moderator does textual analysis and interpretation. This interpretation is then presented back to the participants in the form of a Moderator Statement. This statement is intended to catalyze a 'quickening' of the dialogue to move the conversation on - deeper, wider, narrower, whatever....

In conjunction with the purpose of the group's collective presence the Moderator keeps the conversation on track.

The Moderator reads everything and makes sure that everyone is acknowledged and that every point of view is represented. The Moderator feeds back the context to participants.

The Moderator mediates the technology when the interface fails.

The Moderator is a trickster.

Chris

Thursday, April 08, 2004

What is meaning anyway?

Connecting people via links, lines, wires, channels, conduits, planks, roads, vectors, ropes, whatever .. is amazing. We connect with each other all the time in many ways. But what about the mind to mind connection of language? What about the reciprocal channel we call understanding? Do you understand me? Do you understand what I mean?

These are important questions to me.

Time is a fundamental factor in everything (of course) and even more fundamental in developing relationships based on shared meanings. One of the interesting things about popular culture is the pervasive and continuous assumption that we (individual parts of popular culture) share the same meanings. I don't think so.

Popular culture is, from my perspective, a 'boundary object' in the sense the Susan Leigh Star talks about it (CiteSeerCitations) and affords meaning making but doesn't automatically provide it. Sharing experiences, time, talk, etc. is what makes the meanings. And this is what concerns and interests me. What kind of meaning is made in the staccato pulsing of our days? How much time do we have for collaborative reflection?

Meaning is mysterious in that - it is that - which makes sense of what we are experiencing. It is the sensibleness of the context of our participation... or something.

Meaning takes time. We can make meaning through multiple channels. We can (if we are patient and disciplined) multi-task our meaning making through asynchronous dialogue (moderated). Why Moderated?... hmmm. Later.

Chris

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

Why am I occupied with asynchronous dialogue? Asynchronous participation? Moderated asynchronous dialogue?

Certainly face to face communication is important and preferred for a host of reasons. We have come to rely on it for most of our meaningful person to person interactions. Where we haven’t been able to be co-located physically we have developed ‘almost’ technologies like the telephone and video conferencing technologies that preserve as much of the feeling of face to face as possible. A huge part of this feeling is the synchronous (at the same timeness) nature of the interaction. Face to face interaction is rich and its effects are immediate.

So, why asynchronous? One of the most needed skills and habits of mind in our organizations today is the ability to reflect – to think carefully and critically about an idea, intention, action, or plan. And, it turns out, one of the hardest things to do in the complex immediacy of face to face interactions is to reflect carefully on what one is saying, hearing, doing, or intending. We tend to flow with the moment, shoot from the hip, or rely on standard and reliable behaviors. In face to face interactions we are affected and influenced by body language, status, gender, race, and a host of other related but important ‘relationship’ factors.

What I intend with my design work is to help people learn to talk about important and complex issues (e.g., trust) without the distractions of face to face but with the full impact of a committed and continuing relationship.

So whether you are across the globe or across the room or hallway the benefits of asynchronous dialogue can be significant. However, it takes a commitment and a willingness to learn a new way to communicate – to express yourself.

I also make a distinction between email, blogging, list servs, bulletin boards, and moderated asynchronous dialogue. Dialogue can happen in any of the these mediums but they are not designed for it. Dialogue is different than simple communication - than one to many, one to one, or many to one. Certainly it requires many to many channels but it is not just data or information flowing. It is a process of shared meaning creation - the creation of shared meanings. It takes time and a disposition to stay connected.

Dialogue is creative and generative.

Chris