Factors of collaborative working: a framework for a collaboration model.

Collaboration at work: An integrative multilevel conceptualization

Tuomi, Ilkka: Corporate Knowledge. Theory and Practice of Intelligent Organizations Metaxis Helsinki, 1999 Around ten years of research discussing resource knowledge and its management show us that we do not understand the process of knowledge creation in organisations sufficiently. Still after this intensive period, we find that knowledge management projects in companies often fail; even company consultants only claim to achieve 25 percent success in projects. Most misleading are knowledge management projects with a high orientation on IT. Even the new combination of knowledge instruments nor the introduction of incentive systems could help to overcome the disadvantageous effects of the first and second generation of knowledge management (distinction based on Tuomi 2002), which were AI-inspired or based on information systems using contextual information respectively. From this viewpoint, Tuomi's theoretical ideas are still up to date. Published in 1999, Tuomi's dissertation starts with the question: `What do we understand of the limitations and problems of common sense concepts of information and knowledge, and do these limitations have practical implications in everyday organizational life?' Obviously, we do not understand enough. According to Tuomi, the following indications back up this assumption: First, knowledge management is often seen as a technological issue. Against this, Tuomi emphasises that technology is a relatively small part of any successful knowledge management program. It is still not unusual that `information is often produced without any clear model of why someone would need it, and technology gets too much attention compared to organizational practice'. This leads to Tuomi's second indication, that tools and technologies cannot be utilised without a corresponding practice. In this view, it is not essential that single individuals know and act based on their knowledge. A conceptualisation of knowledge in organisations has to emphasise the link between knowledge and action as the basic constraint of social systems. Knowledge in organisations - corporate knowledge - is socially and culturally embedded, and it can only be generated through changes in organisational activities and practices. Third, Tuomi argues, `that researchers often have been too quick in pointing out that organizations don't have real memory, sensemaking capability and intelligence, and that, of course, human beings are the unique hosts of these cognitive faculties.' The central idea of Tuomi's book the 5-A model of organisational knowledge generation deals with the concept that organisations are collective entities where it is possible to find similarities to intelligence as manifested in humans. With Corporate Knowledge - Theory and Practice of Intelligent OrganiZations, Tuomi prepares the theoretical groundwork for the third generation of knowledge management (Tuomi 2002) that links knowledge and action/practice to a more effective access to information. Consequently, Tuomi pursues questions concerning what role information systems play in knowledge management; how people create shared understandings about the world; what theoretical approaches enable us to understand how to connect information and communication into action; and how organisational knowledge actually emerges. It is interesting to read that these questions emerge from the knowledge management project `Future Watch' at Nokia Research Center and Nokia Telecommunications that failed in the early 1990s. To build up an alternative perspective, in part II Tuomi presents and compares current conceptualisations of knowledge and knowing in organizations: (1) the `prominent empiristic and positivistic view' represented by Bertrand Russell and (2) the `constructivistic and phenomenological view' represented by Henri Bergson (based on Vygotsky). With these authors he contrasted two opposite epistemologies: Russell understands the `human mind as an invariant intelligent faculty' and investigates objects, representations and the logic of thought in a positivistic tradition. …

Corporate Knowledge. Theory and Practice of Intelligent Organizations

The project management (PM) paradigm is rapidly shifting due to business globalization and information technology (IT) advances that support distributed and virtual project teams. Traditional PM focuses on a single project at a single location according to R. Evaristo and P. C. van Fenema (1999) and is more concerned with project inputs and outputs than with project process by J. R. Turner (2000). Management in the past implied projects were conducted with a top down view by K. J. Cleetus et al. (1996). The PM paradigm has begun to change due to the increasing number of distributed projects involving project collaborators from different locations, organizations, and cultures according to N. D. Jonsson et al. (2001). Current and future PM are more concerned with tracking project work processes and efficient and effective sharing of information and knowledge, among project contributors. High-levels of collaboration become essential for distributed project success. Task interdependence and member distribution across time, space, and technology make high degrees of collaboration necessary to accomplish project work. Adequate and timely sharing of information, and knowledge in all directions, proactive change management, and process monitoring are some of the important factors required for successful project collaboration according to F. Maurer (1996). In this article, we review problems associated with traditional PM scenarios, explain how collaborative PM can provide solutions, present a comparison of current commercial collaborative PM tools, and propose a collaborative PM architecture to address the challenges facing distributed projects teams.

/pdf/a-collaborative-project-management-architecture-3i2jd0zcw6.pdf

A collaborative project management architecture

. In this paper, we aim to provide prototype validation in both custom and packaged software development with a theoretical framework located within the philosophy of science. Towards that end, we consider Popperian and Quinean accounts of scientific knowledge and argue that the theoretical underpinning of prototype validation is Quine’s holistic philosophy of science, whose cornerstone principle is that all beliefs are revisable. Specifically, our thesis is that the systems developer and software consumer (user or customer) join forces – not as Popperian falsifiers, who make a decision rule to reject the prototype on account of any divergence, major or minor, from the software consumer’s mental model, but – as Quinean revisers, with the objective of fine-tuning the prototype (or the software consumer’s mental model) so that the prototype and the software consumer’s mental model are congruent with each other. This paper suggests that prototype revisions are belief revisions, and, as such, should be guided – and are guided – by pragmatic norms, such as conservatism, simplicity and generality, and are influenced by social, or sociological, factors as well. Finally, we discuss the relevance, value and pragmatic implications of a Quinean philosophy of science framework for research and practice.

Philosophy of science underpinnings of prototype validation: Popper vs. Quine

Global enterprises have met challenges in managing and leading multi-site projects, working in virtual teams, sharing knowledge and utilizing new communication technology. Several claims stress that conventional face-to-face practices form an essential part of successful project co-working, but this is often impossible in globally dispersed projects. New information and communication technology solutions are needed for converting collaborative actions into virtual ones. We introduce a framework for analyzing and developing work activities in multi-site projects. Four areas of work are distinguished: personal work, work with people, project/team work, and knowledge work. The framework is used for studying the interaction between an individual and his/her work environment. Our interest is to help multi-site projects to successfully collaborate in distributed circumstances. The framework was tested by analyzing two case projects at Nokia. This paper presents our findings of the framework's usefulness to guide organizational and team development and characterizes R&D work in multi-site circumstances at Nokia.

Understanding and evaluating collaborative work in multi-site software projects - a framework proposal and preliminary results

The paper discusses collaboration problems in large organizations where systems development takes place in distributed projects. We describe an in-house collaborative design environment, which has been used in several units in the NOKIA corporation. This environment called Timbuktu is evaluated based on our understanding after several years' consultation and interviews of knowledge sharing in distributed projects. We use two theories to introduce and analyze the subject: collaboration support as a social action theory, and theory of knowledge creation. Both of these theories are discussed in the context of collaborative design environments. The lessons learnt are aimed to guide developing collaboration environments for the future.

Lessons learnt in the use of a collaborative design environment

Successful system architecture design requires an understanding of the needs and requirements of a wide range of stakeholders covering the complete system architecture-related life cycle. Communicating with various stakeholders is a highly delicate task and may cause misunderstandings during the translation of functional needs into architectural properties. We developed the Architecture Evaluation Framework (AEF) to improve the design of telecommunication network elements architecture. The various uses of AEF include checking the appropriateness of architecture in relation to business drivers, suitability of external components (COTS, open source), evaluating internal coherence of a product family, or prioritizing development efforts. Furthermore, the AEF is scalable in terms of process phases and framework comprehensiveness. In this paper, we discuss the creation and use of the AEF. The important architectural issues gathered from product life cycle stakeholders form a framework, a hierarchy of architectural factors. We use a bottom-up approach in building the hierarchy. Thus, the selected factors reflect the terminology used among the stakeholders. Based on our experiences, we claim that such a framework is easy to learn and helps to communicate architectural preferences. These benefits are achieved by using the internal origin, familiar factors, and embedded support for all definitions used in the factor hierarchy.

/pdf/experiences-in-system-architecture-evaluation-a-51ryqwm99f.pdf

J.A. Lehto

Papers

Understanding and evaluating collaborative work in multi-site software projects - a framework proposal and preliminary results

Lessons learnt in the use of a collaborative design environment

Experiences in System Architecture Evaluation: A Communication View for Architectural Design