Collaboration, Trust and Knowledge Sharing in Information Technology Intensive Projects
36
Collaboration, Trust and Knowledge Sharing in Information Technology Intensive Projects Luis Luna October, 2002
description
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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Collaboration, Trust and Knowledge Sharing in Information Technology Intensive Projects
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)
Homeless Information Management System
State (BHS)Providers
CTG
HIMS project
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”)
Initial Conceptualization(Black, 2002)
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.
The origin of the idea(Luna & Andersen, 2002)
The origin of the idea(Luna & Andersen, 2002)
SR
C
?
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.
Trust(Rousseau et al.,1998)
t
Institutional-based Trust
Calculus-based TrustIdentity-based Trust
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
