collaboration, trust and knowledge sharing in information technology intensive projects luis luna...
TRANSCRIPT
Collaboration, Trust and Knowledge Sharing in Information Technology Intensive Projects
Luis Luna
October, 2002
My Objective for Today
• Show you the first iteration of a formal dissertation proposal– Involves 2 cases, 4 literature streams, two
models to be developed in 3 phases, multiple research methods
• What to trim and what to grow stronger
• Help with the proposal boundary (Focus in the way the parts fit together, not the detail)
Elicitated in a GMB session with staff from the CTG on April 13, 2001
Reference Modes
tasks
t
Project definition
Cummulative progress
Reference Modes
Engagement
t
Full engagement
Moderate engagement
Low engagement
HIMS Case Elicitated in a GMB session with staff from the CTG on April 13, 2001
Reference Modes
Knowledge
t
Full knowledge
Moderate knowledge
Low knowledge
Providers knowledge
State knowledge
Built from the GMB session with staff from the CTG on May 10, 2002
Reference Modes
Trust
t
Trust
Distrust
HIMS
Built from archival data on the case and the literature (“very difficult to break distrust once the pattern of spiral reinforcement of distrust is formed”)
Actor A Actor B
Project across
boundaries
Facilitator
Initial Conceptualization
Knowledge about A’s role
Knowledge about B’s role
Trust on B
Knowledge about A’s role
Knowledge about B’s role
Trust on B
Purpose
• The purpose of this research is to develop a grounded theory about the role of an external intervener (facilitator) in the design of a shared space, which promotes the development of trust and knowledge sharing in the context of complex technology-intensive projects.
Grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990)
• Grounded theory consists in a set of techniques to identify themes or concepts across texts, and link them to generate meaningful theories.
• It is possible to use any kind of text– Promotional ads
– Transcriptions of interviews
– Memoranda
– Meeting minutes
– Any kind of textual data.
Grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990)
• In one of the alternatives in the application of the technique, the researcher develops a set of categories or concepts that emerge across the texts.
• In the particular case of system dynamics, these themes can be variables, dynamic behaviors or policy related topics. Every theme is “grounded” in a set of quotes or exemplars across the database of texts.
Shared Space(Schrage, 1999)
• The place where teams work in the creation of ideas around innovative models, simulations and prototypes:– Stakeholder analysis, Process models, Strategic
frameworks, System Dynamics models, software prototypes
• “Who got to play with the model, and when, become a mission-critical management issue”
Effective Designof the Shared Space(Carlile, 2002)
• Three main approaches to knowledge boundaries (also in Saracevic, 1999):– Syntactic approach
– Semantic approach
– Pragmatic approach
• Characteristics of effective boundary objects:– Representativness
– Concretness
– Transformable
Trust
• In this kind of setting (projects like HIMS), trust can become a major governance mechanism
• Common themes: vulnerability, risk, interdependence, positive expectation.
• “Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another” (Rousseau et al., 1998)
Trust
• Three forms of trust relevant to this project– Calculus-based trust.- based on information and
rational choice. Depends on the ability to assess trustworthiness and on the trustee’s propensity to trust
– Identity-based trust.- based on emotional or personal attachment formed by long-term reciprocal interaction.
– Institutional-based trust.- based on organizational culture, societal norms and legal systems that mitigate risk and support trust development.
Knowledge Sharing
• Lots of research in Knowledge Management pointing to 4 basic kinds of knowledge:– Tacit/Explicit– Individual/Group
• Most of these views stress knowledge as an individuals’ “possession”
Knowledge Sharing
• Knowledge “resides on teams of individuals sharing common experiences” (Gherardi & Nicolini, 2000)
• “The source of new knowledge and knowing lies in the use of knowledge as a tool of knowing within situated interaction with the social and physical world” (Cook, 1999)
• “Knowledge is localized, embedded , and invested in the particular objects and ends of a given function” (Carlile, 2002)
Knowledge Sharing(Carlile, 2002)
• Knowledge transfer is a difficult task.
• There is a conflict between the knowledge created by a community of practice and the knowledge needed to promote collaboration between communities.
• Knowledge is a barrier and a source of innovation.
Knowledge Sharing and Trust(Cresswell et al., Forthcoming)
• Trust appears to be an important factor in Information and Knowledge Sharing.
• What is missing is a way of framing a wider range of possible ways in which knowledge sharing and trust can interact in a collaborative process.
Complex Technology- Intensive Project
• Long Tradition in System Dynamics Modeling:– R&D projects (Roberts, 1978; Richardson and Pugh,
1981)
– Ship building projects (Cooper, 1980)
– Software project management (Abdel-Hammid and Madnik, 1991)
– Interactions among allocation of resources when more than one project is under way (Repenning, 2000)
Complex Technology- Intensive Project
Scale-up
Scale-up
Scale-up
Relationships
Specifications
Prototyping
Production
A F
B
Knowledge from the problemCultural ImmersionInteraction during next stage
A BF
D
Knowledge from the problemSpecifications
AB
F
DKnowledge from the problemPrototype
AB
F
D Knowledge from the problemSystem
Trust ofActor A
on Actor B
Actor AEngagement
Collaborativelydoing work
+
Knowledge ofActor A aboutActor A rolein Project
+
+
A Perception ofResults from work
Noise
Actor APerception of
Risk-
+
Actor A propensityto Trust
+
+
Learning
Effectiveness ofdesign
+
+
Accuracy from Apoint of view
+
+
Knowledge ofActor A
about Actor Brole inProject
Actor A willingnessto change
Assessment ofActor B
Trustworthiness
-
-
+
+
Facilitatorinputs
Error
-
-R
Getting engagedor enraged
R
PerceptionBias
R
Learning byDoing
+
R
Learning to workwith you
RActor A influence on
the shared spacedesign
BDiscovering riskassociated with
project
Accuracy from Bpoint of view
Trust ofActor B onActor A
+
Actor B willingness to changeAssessment of Actor A
Trustworthiness
-
Knowledge ofActor B
about ActorA role inProject
-
+
+
R
Getting to know each otheror reciprocally withholding
information
invisiblemarker1
invisiblemarker1 0
Trust ofActor A
on Actor B
Actor AEngagement
Collaborativelydoing work
+
Knowledge ofActor A aboutActor A rolein Project
+
+
A Perception ofResults from work
Noise
Actor APerception of
Risk-
+
Actor A propensityto Trust
+
+
Learning
Effectiveness ofdesign
+
+
Accuracy from Apoint of view
+
+
Knowledge ofActor A
about Actor Brole inProject
Actor A willingnessto change
Assessment ofActor B
Trustworthiness
-
-
+
+
Facilitatorinputs
Error
-
-R
Getting engagedor enraged
R
PerceptionBias
R
Learning byDoing
+
R
Learning to workwith you
RActor A influence on
the shared spacedesign
BDiscovering riskassociated with
project
Accuracy from Bpoint of view
Trust ofActor B onActor A
+
Actor B willingness to changeAssessment of Actor A
Trustworthiness
-
Knowledge ofActor B
about ActorA role inProject
-
+
+
R
Getting to know each otheror reciprocally withholding
information
invisiblemarker1
invisiblemarker1 0
Trust ofActor A
on Actor B
Actor AEngagement
Collaborativelydoing work
+
Knowledge ofActor A aboutActor A rolein Project
+
+
A Perception ofResults from work
Noise
Actor APerception of
Risk-
+
Actor A propensityto Trust
+
+
Learning
Effectiveness ofdesign
+
+
Accuracy from Apoint of view
+
+
Knowledge ofActor A
about Actor Brole inProject
Actor A willingnessto change
Assessment ofActor B
Trustworthiness
-
-
+
+
Facilitatorinputs
Error
-
-R
Getting engagedor enraged
R
PerceptionBias
R
Learning byDoing
+
R
Learning to workwith you
RActor A influence on
the shared spacedesign
BDiscovering riskassociated with
project
Accuracy from Bpoint of view
Trust ofActor B onActor A
+
Actor B willingness to changeAssessment of Actor A
Trustworthiness
-
Knowledge ofActor B
about ActorA role inProject
-
+
+
R
Getting to know each otheror reciprocally withholding
information
invisiblemarker1
invisiblemarker1 0
Trust ofActor A
on Actor B
Actor AEngagement
Collaborativelydoing work
+
Knowledge ofActor A aboutActor A rolein Project
+
+
A Perception ofResults from work
Noise
Actor APerception of
Risk-
+
Actor A propensityto Trust
+
+
Learning
Effectiveness ofdesign
+
+
Accuracy from Apoint of view
+
+
Knowledge ofActor A
about Actor Brole inProject
Actor A willingnessto change
Assessment ofActor B
Trustworthiness
-
-
+
+
Facilitatorinputs
Error
-
-R
Getting engagedor enraged
R
PerceptionBias
R
Learning byDoing
+
R
Learning to workwith you
RActor A influence on
the shared spacedesign
BDiscovering riskassociated with
project
Accuracy from Bpoint of view
Trust ofActor B onActor A
+
Actor B willingness to changeAssessment of Actor A
Trustworthiness
-
Knowledge ofActor B
about ActorA role inProject
-
+
+
R
Getting to know each otheror reciprocally withholding
information
invisiblemarker1
invisiblemarker1 0
Trust ofActor A
on Actor B
Actor AEngagement
Collaborativelydoing work
+
Knowledge ofActor A aboutActor A rolein Project
+
+
A Perception ofResults from work
Noise
Actor APerception of
Risk-
+
Actor A propensityto Trust
+
+
Learning
Effectiveness ofdesign
+
+
Accuracy from Apoint of view
+
+
Knowledge ofActor A
about Actor Brole inProject
Actor A willingnessto change
Assessment ofActor B
Trustworthiness
-
-
+
+
Facilitatorinputs
Error
-
-R
Getting engagedor enraged
R
PerceptionBias
R
Learning byDoing
+
R
Learning to workwith you
RActor A influence on
the shared spacedesign
BDiscovering riskassociated with
project
Accuracy from Bpoint of view
Trust ofActor B onActor A
+
Actor B willingness to changeAssessment of Actor A
Trustworthiness
-
Knowledge ofActor B
about ActorA role inProject
-
+
+
R
Getting to know each otheror reciprocally withholding
information
invisiblemarker1
invisiblemarker1 0
Trust ofActor A
on Actor B
Actor AEngagement
Collaborativelydoing work
+
Knowledge ofActor A aboutActor A rolein Project
+
+
A Perception ofResults from work
Noise
Actor APerception of
Risk-
+
Actor A propensityto Trust
+
+
Learning
Effectiveness ofdesign
+
+
Accuracy from Apoint of view
+
+
Knowledge ofActor A
about Actor Brole inProject
Actor A willingnessto change
Assessment ofActor B
Trustworthiness
-
-
+
+
Facilitatorinputs
Error
-
-R
Getting engagedor enraged
R
PerceptionBias
R
Learning byDoing
+
R
Learning to workwith you
RActor A influence on
the shared spacedesign
BDiscovering riskassociated with
project
Accuracy from Bpoint of view
Trust ofActor B onActor A
+
Actor B willingness to changeAssessment of Actor A
Trustworthiness
-
Knowledge ofActor B
about ActorA role inProject
-
+
+
R
Getting to know each otheror reciprocally withholding
information
invisiblemarker1
invisiblemarker1 0
Trust ofActor A
on Actor B
Actor AEngagement
Collaborativelydoing work
+
Knowledge ofActor A aboutActor A rolein Project
+
+
A Perception ofResults from work
Noise
Actor APerception of
Risk-
+
Actor A propensityto Trust
+
+
Learning
Effectiveness ofdesign
+
+
Accuracy from Apoint of view
+
+
Knowledge ofActor A
about Actor Brole inProject
Actor A willingnessto change
Assessment ofActor B
Trustworthiness
-
-
+
+
Facilitatorinputs
Error
-
-R
Getting engagedor enraged
R
PerceptionBias
R
Learning byDoing
+
R
Learning to workwith you
RActor A influence on
the shared spacedesign
BDiscovering riskassociated with
project
Accuracy from Bpoint of view
Trust ofActor B onActor A
+
Actor B willingness to changeAssessment of Actor A
Trustworthiness
-
Knowledge ofActor B
about ActorA role inProject
-
+
+
R
Getting to know each otheror reciprocally withholding
information
invisiblemarker1
invisiblemarker1 0
The Modeling Strategy
Actor A Actor B
Project across
boundaries
Facilitator
Knowledge about A’s role
Knowledge about B’s role
Trust on B
Knowledge about A’s role
Knowledge about B’s role
Trust on B
The Modeling StrategyPhase 1
Actor A Actor B
Project across
boundaries
Knowledge about A’s role
Knowledge about B’s role
Trust on B
Knowledge about A’s role
Knowledge about B’s role
Trust on B
Facilitator
• HIMS Model (Based on Group Model Building and Archival Data)
• Finish the modeling work
• Develop and test policies
The Modeling StrategyPhase 2
Actor AB
Project across
boundaries
Facilitator
Knowledge about Design
Knowledge about Problem
Trust on Facilitator
Knowledge about Design
Knowledge about Problem
Trust on AB
• DOJ (Ver. 1) Model (Based on interviews and direct observation)
• Develop and test policies
The Modeling StrategyPhase 3
• DOJ (Ver 2) Model (Based on interviews and direct observation)
• Test Policies developed and tested in phases 1 and 2
Actor A Actor B
Project across
boundaries
Facilitator
Knowledge about A’s role
Knowledge about B’s role
Trust on B
Knowledge about A’s role
Knowledge about B’s role
Trust on B