Think Out Loud – Page 2 – Eugene Eric Kim

ChiliPLoP, Day 3

Published April 20, 2004 by Eugene Eric Kim

Last Thursday, my workshop met for a second day. Having agreed on a working definition for collaboration (see Collab:Collaboration), we started working on the Pattern Language. As was the case the previous day, I knew exactly what I wanted to accomplish, and I made that clear when we got started. What differed this day, however, was that Linda Rising, Ofra Homsky, and Joe Yoder — our three experienced Pattern Language authors — led the way in terms of process. (1CT)

We began by laying out the index cards we had collected the previous day onto a table. The goal was to see what patterns we had and what seemed to be missing. The definition that we had collectively agreed on the day before helped us tremendously with this process. For example, because collaboration — as we defined it — required bounded goals, that meant there were patterns related to the start and end of the collaborative process. There were also patterns related to interaction (meetings for example) and knowledge exchange (Shared Display). (1CU)

Mapping out our cards also helped us identify gateways to other Pattern Languages, such as Linda and Mary Lynn Manns‘s patterns for introducing new ideas into organizations, Ofra’s patterns for leadership, Jim Coplien and Neil Harrison‘s organizational patterns, and GivingSpace‘s patterns of uplift. (1CV)

Lots of brainstorming and storytelling happened throughout. My favorite was a story that Joe Yoder told about a factory where he had previously worked, which literally left its financial books open on the factory floor. Anyone who worked at the company could examine the books and suggest improvements. The open books were a form of Think Out Loud that showed that the company treated its operations as a collaborative process involving all of its employees, regardless of position. Tremendously empowering stuff. (1CW)

Linda, Ofra, and Joe constantly stressed the importance of iteration and cautioned Josh Rai and me about getting too caught up with formality too early in the process. Ever fearful of being berated by Ralph Johnson or Jim Coplien, I would periodically complain, “That name isn’t a noun phrase!” Fortunately, the rest of the group kept me on track. We had plenty of time to weed out and refine our patterns after the brainstorming process. (1CX)

We ended our brainstorming at lunch, at which point we had 36 cards. After lunch, we picked two patterns — Collab:StoneSoup and Collab:KickOff — and Linda led us through a group pattern writing exercise. (I’ll say more about these two patterns when I describe Day 4.) She gave us a letter-sized piece of paper for each component of the Coplien Form (name, problem, context, forces, solution, rationale, resulting context, known uses, and related patterns). Each of us took one piece of paper, wrote down our ideas, then exchanged it with someone else for another piece of paper. The cycle continued until we all had our say to our satisfaction. Afterwards, we discussed what we had written. (1CY)

This was the first time Linda had tried this particular exercise, and I think it worked very well. It was particularly good at helping us reach Shared Understanding. We all had slightly different views of both patterns. Actually going through the group writing process helped make these differences explicit, at which point we were able to talk through our differences. (1CZ)

Because Josh and I were the pattern-writing newbies in the group, we each collected the sheets for one of the patterns and promised to combine, edit, and rewrite them into a readable draft. I chose Collab:StoneSoup; Josh took Collab:KickOff. The plan for Day 4 (which was only a half day) was to workshop our results. (1D0)

I ended the day with a brief overview of how blogs and Wikis integrated with Backlinks could be used to tie stories with corresponding patterns. (1D1)

Chili Beer (1D2)

Since that night was our last in Carefree, I decided to organize a margarita BOF. Earlier, somebody had told us about the Satisfied Frog, a legendary Mexican restaurant and bar that had “a thousand different kinds of margaritas.” This was the obvious place to hold our BOF, so Josh, Jerry Michalski, Gerry Gleason, and I trekked on over. (1D3)

As with most legends, the facts had been slightly exaggerated. The Satisfied Frog only served one kind of margarita, although in fairness, it did give us the option of frozen versus on-the-rocks and with or without salt. (1D4)

The restaurant did, however, brew its own special beer — chili beer — which was bottled with a serrano chili pepper. It had a nice kick to it, but it wasn’t overpowering. I recommend it to those with a a penchant for adventure and a bit of a heat tolerance. (1D5)

Talk: Cheap, but Necessary

Published March 31, 2004 by Eugene Eric Kim

John Stafford had an interesting response to my recent blog entry, “Million Dollar Dialog.” John said, “The problem with dialogue is that talk is cheap,” and then proceeded to tell an anecdote about a series of town hall meetings on education that led absolutely nowhere. (19U)

Before I respond, I want to share Tom Munnecke‘s thoughts, which I liked a lot. Tom wrote: (19V)

It strikes me that we could have a lot more talk in many circumstances:    (19W)

Physicians could take more time to communicate with their patients (and be given it in their schedules)    (19X)

Parents could talk more with their children.    (19Y)

Americans could talk more with Europeans, instead of letting their leaders or the media do the communicating for them.    (19Z)

Muslims, Christians, and Jews could talk more.    (1A0)

…    (1A1)

Seems to me that we should be talking about the quality of the communication and the “rightness” of the action, not simply trying to pump up “action” at the expense of “talk.”    (1A2)

I agree with both John and Tom. Talk is cheap, but it’s also necessary. Talk leads to Shared Understanding, which is an absolute prerequisite to effective collaboration. One of the biggest mistakes people make when trying to collaborate is confusing talk with lack of action. The two are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are highly complementary. (1A3)

I’ve suggested in other posts that collaboration requires shared, bounded goals. Those goals generally manifest themselves as action. However, action that does not emerge from a Shared Understanding of ideas is not collaboration. That doesn’t mean it’s not valuable, but in many cases, its effectiveness is limited. Consider organizational mission statements. Suppose a CEO spent a week writing a mission statement for his or her company. Compare this to a CEO leading a six-month, organization-wide, facilitated dialog for collectively developing a mission statement. Even if the two statements were exactly the same, the latter would be far more meaningful than the former. (1A4)

Action is important in two ways. First, it signifies progress — the achievement of shared, bounded goals. Second, action itself is a form of communication that helps strengthen Shared Understanding. (1A5)

How do we facilitate action from talk? Representation, as John suggests, is vital. You need to have the right set of people, people who are capable and motivated. Jay Cross recently wrote about the Pareto Principle, more commonly known as the 80/20 rule. 20 percent of a group is usually responsible for 80 percent of the work. It only takes a small number of folks to get things done, but you need to make sure you have the right people in the first place. (1A6)

Still, talk plays an important role here, because it gets ideas out there. When you Think Out Loud, there’s a possibility that someone who is action-oriented will hear and will do something about it. One of the explicit goals of our Collaboration Collaboratory is to capture the good ideas that emerge from our dialog. Even if nobody in our collaboratory decides to do anything about them, by capturing them and making them accessible, we increase the likelihood that someone else will. It’s a phenomenon I’ve seen time and again. (1A7)

Battling Group Think

Published January 2, 2004 by Eugene Eric Kim

Geoff Cohen asked: (PM)

As we build different kinds of groupware/social software, what’s the role of consensus, and how powerful is it? Does software make reaching consensus easier or harder? For purely message-driven systems like email lists or USENET, consensus is much harder to reach than it would be in a real-life meeting. But once consensus is reached, breaking that consensus often brings down the flames of wrath. All of this is somehow invisibly coded in the interstices of the software architecture and human nature.    (PN)

…    (PO)

Could we architect social software that fought groupthink? Or does it just make the gravitational attraction of consensus, even flawed consensus, ever so much more irresistable?    (PP)

Seb Paquet responded: (PQ)

I think the key to avoiding unhealthy levels of groupthink has to do with designing spaces that consistently exert pull upon outsiders (or social hackers or community straddlers), so as to keep the air fresh.    (PR)

…    (PS)

I think the blogosphere exhibits this kind of “outsider pull” much more than topic-focused forums.    (PT)

…    (PU)

But what about action? A diverse group has fewer blind spots, but on the other hand, agreement in such a group can be harder to establish, so there is a real possibility that the group will go nowhere beyond conversation. Is a core of agreed-upon ideas necessary for group action to take place? I think so. Does this mean that group action requires groupthink? Not necessarily, because some people are able to act upon ideas without believing in them so strongly they can no longer challenge them.    (PV)

Ross Mayfield added: (PW)

He [Seb] is right that groupthink is avoided by a social network structure that allows a dynamic and diverse periphery to provide new ideas, but the core of the network needs to be tightly bound to be able to take action.    (PX)

That’s the main point of Building Sustainable Communities through Network Building by Valdis Krebs and June Holley.    (PY)

…    (PZ)

The ideal core/periphery structure affords a densely linked core and a dynamic periphery. One pattern for social software that supports this is an intimacy gradient (privacy/openness), to allow the core some privacy for backchanneling. But this requires ridiculously easy group forming, as the more hardened the space the more hard-nosed its occupants become.    (Q0)

Finally, Bill Seitz commented: (Q1)

I think a shared mission is necessary. Whether that amounts to groupthink is a fair question. (Q2)

There are a goldmine of ideas here, and the discussion is highly relevant to issues currently faced by the Collaboration Collaboratory. I’ll address them one at a time. (Q3)

Group Think Versus Group Action (Q4)

Bill’s comment points to the crux of the matter. What qualifies as Group Think or Group Action? We’ve discussed this question a lot at Blue Oxen Associates. In our upcoming research report, we draw a distinction between bounded and unbounded goals, and individual and collective goals. Generally, having shared unbounded goals is enough to constitute group alignment, but having shared bounded goals is required before you can call an effort “collaboration.” (Q5)

The larger the group, the harder it is to define a shared, bounded goal that every group member will endorse. A good example of where this happens are elections. In the case of Howard Dean supporters, for example, the community is defined by a universally shared, bounded goal — voting Dean for president in 2004. As we’ve seen in the Dean case, having that universally shared, bounded goal was a galvanizing force for a previously unseen community of progressives in this country. (Q6)

For large groups, I don’t think it’s necessary to have universally shared, bounded goals, although it’s nice when it happens. It’s enough to have small subgroups sharing different bounded goals, as long as they do not conflict with the unbounded goals, which must be universally shared. (Q7)

The Intimacy Gradient Pattern (Q8)

An aside on terminology: Intimacy Gradient is an excellent name for the phenomenon I first tried to describe in a previous blog entry, where I introduced the Think Out Loud and Whine In Private patterns. The problem I had in describing the Whine In Private pattern was that some spaces — blogs being the best example — felt like private forums, but were actually public. So people whining on their blogs are not actually Whining In Private; they just feel like they are. (Q9)

Ross also used the term Backchannel, which I had also recently noted in my Wiki as a good name to describe this mostly private, but partially public space. (QA)

Community Boundaries (QB)

One of the founding principles of the Blue Oxen Collaboratories is that the products of the discussion and interaction should all be freely available to everyone. This is why the mailing list archives are publically available, even if participation is restricted to members. (QC)

There is an Intimacy Gradient pattern involved here. There is a small barrier to entry to participate in tight-knit discussions, which makes the environment more conducive to parlor-style conversations. On the other hand, anyone can benefit from the resulting knowledge, which is our ultimate goal. Our hope is that the collaboratories act as a substrate for a much larger conversation. (QD)

This has already begun to happen, and blogs play a key role. Bill Seitz, Chris Dent, Danny Ayers, and I have all blogged about discussions on the Collaboration Collaboratory, which expands the conversation to a larger group. The side effects include countering Group Think, as Seb suggests, and also attracting new members who want to participate more directly in the lower-level interactions. Similarly, we mention these blogs on the mailing lists, so the collaboratory members are aware of the larger conversation, thus completing the circle. (QE)

Are there hidden costs to these Intimacy Gradients? Absolutely. Examples of blogs being read by the “wrong” audiences abound. Gregory Rawlins became a victim when he made some choice comments about another programmer’s software on a private, but publically archived list. (Sorry, Greg, but I always get a good laugh when I reread this.) (QF)

Nevertheless, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides. I recently joined Howard Rheingold‘s Brainstorms community, and have wanted to link to some of the discussions there, but couldn’t. It’s unfortunate, because those linkages are lost, but it’s a tradeoff I understand. Finding the right balance is tricky. (QG)

How Open Should Wikis Be? (QH)

Our original intention with the Wikis on the Blue Oxen Collaboratories was to treat them the same as the mailing lists — restrict writing to members, but allow anyone to read the content. However, we did not configure our Wikis that way, mainly because we couldn’t — UseModWiki doesn’t have this feature — and it was low on list of things to hack. (See PurpleWiki:RoadMap.) (QI)

Based on our experiences with this configuration and further examination of other Wikis, I’m reluctant to change this model now. One potential compromise is to require registration to write to the Wikis, but to make registration free. The difference between this and simply allowing anyone to click on “Edit This” is subtle, but significant. I’m still a bit undecided on this issue, although I seem to be leaning in favor of extreme openness. The reason for this is simply that we’ve had some interesting contributions and comments to the Wikis that probably would not have been made if there were even the slightest barriers to entry. Again, it’s a good safeguard against Group Think. (QJ)

This issue recently cropped up again, because both the PurpleWiki and Collaboration Collaboratory Wikis were vandalized for the first time. Chris Dent discovered the act first and quickly fixed it, noting, “In a way this is sort of a good sign. Infamy is almost as good as fame….” My reaction was, “Good catch, by the way. A good sign of a healthy Wiki is how quickly the community fixes vandalism.” Notable in both of our reactions was that we simply fixed the problem and moved on, instead of rushing to implement access control. (QK)

John Sechrest, however, suggested that access control was exactly what the Wikis needed, which led to some interesting philosophical debate about the openness of Wikis. My response to John wasn’t very deep, but it does sum up my feelings on the matter: “Wikis are successful because the cost to contribute are zero. There are downsides, but there are also upsides. Get rid of one, you also lose the other.” (QL)

“Turn Off Your Computer” and Other Pattern Ramblings

Published November 26, 2003 by Eugene Eric Kim

As I mentioned previously, Blue Oxen is finishing up its second research report. We spent several hours developing a survey for the report, and all of us were quite satisfied with the final draft. Then we e-mailed the surveys. Almost immediately afterwards, the three of us thought of several more questions we would have liked to have asked. (CR)

The experience struck a chord in Josh Rai, who suggested there was a force there that manifested itself in several patterns. Last Thursday, he came up with a pattern as an example: Turn Off Your Computer. It’s both a pattern for good living — or as Josh called it, a “Martha Stewart” pattern — and also a pattern for knowledge work. I think the underlying force is one that crops up constantly, and is worth discussing. I also think explaining this particular pattern is a useful way of demonstrating the difference between a pattern and a force. (CS)

Turn Off Your Computer (CT)

Problem: You can’t remember whether you’ve finished all of your tasks. (CU)

Context: You think you’re done with your tasks for the day — scheduling a meeting, sending an e-mail, etc. — but you have a sinking feeling that there was something else you were supposed to do. (CV)

Forces: ? (CW)

Solution: Turn off your computer. You’ll remember what you were supposed to do after the computer is off. (CX)

Resulting Context: There is a sense of finality in turning off your computer that helps unclutter your mind, making it easier to remember whatever it was that you forgot. (CY)

Rationale: You can always turn your computer back on. Remembering what you forgot before it’s too late more than makes up for the five minutes wasted in restarting the computer. (CZ)

Related Patterns (D0)

All of the Think Out Loud patterns tend to have a similar effect. For example, I often find that I discover all sorts of new insights and ways to express ideas after I submit a paper for publication. One way to trick yourself into thinking of these ideas ahead of time is to show your drafts to people. I’m generally reluctant to do this — as are many others I know — because I’m self-conscious of my writing. However, the payoff always makes it worth it. (D1)

The software analog of this is Commit Early And Often. Checking in code not only allows others to review your work, it often frees your mind into solving previously unresolved issues. (D2)

When I’m having trouble thinking through a problem, discussing it with other people often helps. In fact, I often figure out the solution myself right after explaining the problem. Sometimes, just formulating the problem in my head prior to explaining it leads to the solution. Nevertheless, I find it vital to have the person physically present. (D3)

Pattern Ramblings (D4)

In this particular case, we recognized the force before coming up with the pattern (although I still haven’t managed to describe the force usefully). I think of the difference between patterns and forces as analogous to the difference between patterns of language and the rules of language. Infants (and perhaps most adults) learn languages by recognizing and repeating patterns. We know nothing about syntax and semantic rules until we are taught them, at least not consciously. Nevertheless, while knowing the rules are not necessary for learning the language, they are valuable for understanding and evolving the language. (D5)

Furthermore, we are good at recognizing patterns, but we’re not necessarily cognizant of them, and hence, are often not good at synthesizing them. Writing a good pattern is hard; recognizing a good pattern is much easier. (D6)

We don’t necessarily have to be cognizant of patterns in order to apply them. However, it certainly helps. Comedians, for example, are applying patterns of humor. Most of these comedians are probably aware of these patterns, although they probably weren’t when they were merely funny people. People who aren’t natural comedians can learn to crack jokes once they are aware of these patterns. (D7)

Whining In Private

Published July 16, 2003 by Eugene Eric Kim

In the process of writing Blue Oxen Associate‘s first research report, “An Introduction to Open Source Communities” (BOA-00007), I wanted to describe a pattern I had observed in the SquirrelMail community. The problem was, I could not figure out what to call it. I came up with something thoroughly inadequate, included it in the first draft, and subsequently removed it after Chris Dent rightfully criticized it. (U)

A few days later, in a fit of silliness, I thought of a name: Whine In Private. Squirrel Mail’s core team was well-versed at whining in private, and for some reason, I thought that it was useful, important behavior that needed to be highlighted and discussed. Unfortunately, I still could not articulate why, and thus, it never made it into the report. (V)

A Parliamentary Model of Virtual Communities (W)

I realize now why I got stuck. Whine In Private is an important pattern, but what is even more important is the notion of space and boundaries within communities. There are at least two kinds of space in every community — private and public — and appropriate behaviors depend on the space in which they take place. (X)

This may seem obvious, but it’s not always taken into consideration when people study communities. It’s easy to assume that all discourse in online communities occurs online and in public. Sometimes, this is true, but not always. I contend that most effective online communities have a substantial amount of correspondence between members that occurs outside of the public forums. I further contend that this correspondence is not merely idle chit-chat, but communication that is essential to the overall group dynamic. (Y)

In BOA-00007, I describe two open source communities — TouchGraph and Squirrel Mail — both of which exhibit this behavior. In the case of Touch Graph, I note that Alex Shapiro, the project’s founder and leader, had named three people who had made significant contributions to the project, and yet, none of those three people had ever posted to Touch Graph’s public forums. All of those conversations had occurred over private e-mail. (Z)

Similarly, core members of Squirrel Mail, whose public forum is significantly more active than Touch Graph’s, frequently correspond over private e-mail, instant messenging, and even the telephone. Additionally, Squirrel Mail, has a private mailing list that is reserved for core contributors. (10)

Both Touch Graph and Squirrel Mail exhibit a parliamentary model of community interaction. In a parliament, discourse between community members is public and is often archived for the public record. However, a significant amount of interaction occurs behind-the-scenes, and these backroom meetings often shape the discussion and decision-making on the floor. (11)

Without awareness of the private interactions, it would be impossible to fully comprehend the public interactions. A prime example is the filibuster. On the surface, a filibuster seems to consist of an individual hogging the floor with rhetoric that adds no new insights to the discussion at hand. In reality, a filibuster is a political move designed to stall decision-making until a compromise is reached behind-the-scenes. (12)

Online communities resemble this parliamentary model, and as a result, we must be cautious when studying these communities. We cannot fully understand the patterns of public discourse in an online community without also understanding the context of those interactions. (13)

Think Out Loud (14)

Recognizing the parliamentary model of virtual communities is useful, but it also begs the question: When should one discuss things in private rather than in public? I believe that the answer is different for online communities than it is for face-to-face communities, because the digital medium encourages another important pattern of collaboration: Think Out Loud. (15)

One important aspect of online communities is that the interaction is usually archived and accessible to an even larger community. When you post to an online forum, you are aware of a finite number of people who are visible within that community and who will most likely pay attention to what you say, but you are also cognizant of the possibility that many other people may be listening. That possibility subtly influences what you say and whether you say it. (16)

For example, one behavior that is common in online forums is long, back-and-forth conversations between two people, exchanges that are not always acknowledged as on-topic or accessible to the community at large. Although opinions differ on the appropriateness of these exchanges, they are tolerated far more often on online forums than in face-to-face meetings. Because they occur asynchronously, only those interested in following the discussion need devote the time to do so. Listening closely to these conversations, especially when held between respected members of the community with strongly opposed viewpoints, can be extremely enlightening. (17)

Think Out Loud is an important pattern of collaboration, and members of successful online communities tend to do it well. I think that Touch Graph would have benefited from doing more Think Out Loud by having the core contributors discuss their changes on the public forum rather than over private e-mail. (18)

However, Think Out Loud has its drawbacks. The biggest is the danger of information overload. While a detailed exchange between two gurus can be fascinating, it can also clog your e-mail. If enough of these exchanges occur, you may find yourself ignoring the content of that community entirely. (19)

Additionally, some things are simply best left unsaid, or at least said in private. That generally includes whining. (1A)

Whine In Private (1B)

In my description of Squirrel Mail in BOA-00007, I alluded to some political difficulties, but I did not elaborate, because I did not have enough time to hear all sides of the story. I would never have even known about these problems had I not been as aggressively thorough with my research. Every core member of the project knew about these problems and had given these problems some thought, and yet, none of them had ever mentioned these problems publically. In other words, they had Whined In Private. (1C)

There’s an old saying in sports about “keeping it in the locker room.” In the military, etiquette prevents officers from criticizing their superiors in front of other soldiers. Everyone knows that there are going to be internal squabbles even among the closest groups of people, and the common wisdom is to work these problems out in private when possible. (1D)

I felt like Squirrel Mail did an excellent job of Whining In Private — working out their problems over private e-mail and telephone — and I am certain that it helped strengthen the bonds within the community while maintaining a strong, unified public front. What I wanted to convey in BOA-00007 was that effective communities knew when to discuss things in public and when to discuss things in private. I failed to do this, because I was still unable to identify to my satisfaction when it was appropriate to Whine In Private, and why. (1E)

Further Graying the Boundaries (1F)

At first glance, Whine In Private seems to be in direct conflict with Think Out Loud. (This is not strictly true, as there is an implicit qualifier to Think Out Loud of “when appropriate.”) The premise of Think Out Loud is that there is value in expressing yourself when you know (or at least think) that other people are listening. The premise of Whine In Private is that some things are best left unsaid, or at least said privately. (1G)

However, not only do online communities blur the notions of public and private space, but different tools blur them even more. In the paradigm of online forums, for example, Think Out Loud and Whine In Private do indeed conflict. However, blogs are public vehicles of self-expression, public spaces that feel private, and thus, facilitate some level of both patterns simultaneously. (1H)

Blogs allow you to Think Out Loud as much as you like without fear of overburdening others with information, because listening is strictly voluntary. Listening is not entirely voluntary with online forums; if it were, then spam would not be a problem, because people could simply ignore it. (1I)

Similarly, blogs allow you to Whine In Private, or at least feel like you’re Whining In Private. The fact that they are not actually private cannot be ignored. For example, I do not think it would have been appropriate for the Squirrel Mail core members to complain about their political problems on their blogs. However, I do think there are circumstances where whining on a blog would actually be positive for a community, while making the same complaints on a mailing list would be disastrous. (1J)