Collaboration is the key to so much of what so many of us are trying to do. I would love to get into deep discussion on this - but for now I'll just collect up a few thoughts currently circulating, post some references, high-light some emails, and hope to return to the topic later:
What does collaboration mean, and how are we going to do it in practice? We are struggling to get a clear shared idea of this - and not only what it means, but also how we are to make the transition to collaboration from the individualistic and competitive (capitalist/consumerist) cultures many of us have been raised in.
I'm discovering relevant platforms to help collaboration happen and hope to explore them properly - but for now I'm still "doing it the hard way 'cos its easier for me" - i.e. I haven't found time to check them out and apply them yet, but hope to follow in the footsteps of others who go there first and can show me the way through some collaboration. That is starting to happen for me at Bettermeans. I' like it to happen at Ifwerantheword as well.
Collaboration is being discussed in the openkollab group. I've highlighted some of Fabio Barone's email below, and included my reply. The debate is moving on rapidly, but this is a useful starting point.
This is part of what he writes - his full email is included below, along with my reply.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Fabio Barone <holon.earth@gmail.com> Date: 28 October 2010 13:53
Subject: [OK] Connecting the dots
To:
openkollab@googlegroups.com
Not being linked to any particular project or organization, I feel I can freely express some thoughts here.
This list started with Suresh's proposal of an ecosystem. Ecosystems thrive on *diverse* web of relationships by exchanging nutrients. We could all see ourselves as seeds of a thriving ecosystem.
There has been tremendous value created through all of you here in your individual endeavors. Thank you for that.
This is collective intelligence.
I think it's trying to connect the dots now.
I start from the assumption that we are in this list because we are looking for ways to collaborate. Do real work together.
What thus follows is an outline of a possibility on how to do that.
The main challenge of course lies in jumping ahead and trying new things, leaving behind old models and try new ones. This might not be easy and successful, let alone frictionless, and it's risky.
Many of you have put enormous amounts of time, energy, passion in your individual projects. Ultimately, you want to be rewarded for that, to varying degrees. Most at least would like to make a living of it.
We are so much trapped in the current arrangements that rewards/making a living still comes down to money.
I anticipate here's a tough issue, how to continue working for "our babies" but still being open and get rewarded?
A lot of different point of views here stem from this fact I believe.
Anyway, I'd like to stir more discussion. When I wrote last week that I sensed "pressing urge for action", I actually meant that we may want to try out things instead of talking, making experiences - going from ideas to a prototype, which may get scrapped, but helps us to improve.
I believe this is what's happening at COTW.
We could look at the notion of the ecosystem a bit different. In an ecosystem, timing cycles are not uniform. Lots of individual relationships, with different timings (blooming, decaying, etc.), self-organization, auto-poiesis, etc.
Could we transfer this metaphor to our challenges? What if instead of trying to come up with THE UNIFYING PLATFORM, the mammoth platform, the super-bright-ingenious big collaboration principle which applies anywhere - we'd just create a tool set for projects to choose from?
The idea is just about making people work together effectively. Make those people work together who have concrete projects and affinity to each other. The big picture should emerge (?).
The main driver would be a framework which allows legally and organizationally to create groups and projects ad-hoc.
Imagine we could just create as many organizations and projects as we need/want, while staffing them with people distributed everywhere. Projects can be durable or may dissolve after project end, freeing resources and people to move on to the next project/task/endeavor.
This to me suggests the picture of fermenting countless relationships, bringing the ecosystem to unfold.
What we'd need? First of all, I believe collaboration is just a word, and every collaboration is intrinsically specific to the parties and the work involved. Thus, there is no rule that fits it all. Let the projects assemble and decide how they collaborate.
We'd need a framework for people to choose the organizational form, to choose rewarding mechanisms and to become operational.
And then you need a process/platform to develop and manage your project.
I imagine you'll want to have a complete effective project organization, from funding to reporting.
Thus, we could envision short to long term organizations forming horizontally over vertical service providers. Service providers are interchangeable depending on the requirements of the project. I don't believe in the platform for everything.
So currently, the proposals most affine to these ideas, with which we can play, I think are Chris Cook's Open Capital Partnerships (OCP) and Bettermeans (BM).
The OCP is a general organizational model, in which investors, users and contributors of an enterprise are loosely organized. It's just a framework and customizable as far as I can see. You come together, work together, realize the project and get "paid" according to the arrangements agreed at project start.
BM is mainly a project management platform, helping to work around certain shared values. I can't think of BM suiting all (collaborative) projects. But it offers a point to start exploring these new ways of working together along new values. I think most in this list have at least been intrigued by the way BM is entering the space.
But finally, neither OCP nor BM are unavoidable. I mean, if this general meme of collaborating holds true as I believe, then new organizational forms, new project management / community management processes and platforms will emerge, addressing different needs. Thus, OCP and BM are exchangeable. If anyone has other and/or better ideas, just step forward.
That is where I see massive potential for the COTW project: It is spearheading new ways of collaborating. And it is experiencing boundaries. It needs to try out things. Looks as for the time being, BM will be used to make first steps.
Nevertheless, nobody in this list should feel herself pushed to anything. I don't see COTW as a main project for everything, but just a project among others. Maybe a prototype also for ecosystem project organizations.
We shouldn't try to stuff all projects in there. This then means anybody is free to choose tools the way best fits you.
For example, tav, Marcos and Michael Chisari from appleseed are doing quite similar work on their own platforms. For the COTW vision, it would be fantastic if these 3 guys (if they want and can) could somehow merge forces. They in fact are creating what the COTW film termed "Catalyst Network". All the 3 being techies with long experience, they might choose to work completely independently with the tools they want and need. They'd just need to plugin into COTW say in terms of reporting, interlinking and documenting in order to be under the same flag (?).
Every project might have own funding. With appropriate infrastructure and maybe active Internet community involvement (crowds) people can be drawn to "invest" into projects. The Open Pool Fund idea could be used to organize merging funding streams (just to work out the example, Marcos, Michael and tav may have their own funding which,
together with some OCP investor maybe, they have a pool of funding they collaboratively manage - of course if they want. It'd be just another tool in the toolbox).
It's about creating a framework for people to self-assemble in organizations and projects. Projects appear and can dissolve, people move freely (how about taxing and legal though.... big black hole for me here). Lots of small and middle projects instead of big ones.
As John pointed out, we'd maybe need to be able to openly track and store value, so that it's not stuck into BM for example. I believe Chris Cook's unitization approach, merged with ideas from the Catalyst Network, could be worthwhile checking out.
Finally this may lead to cooperation networks (to not say business) if things mature...
***
I've written this all down because I believe it could work.
Because I want to share these ideas.
Because I believe it's just about connecting the dots.
Because you guys have all done great work.
I don't believe this to be the best idea - just one.
Don't hesitate to call a doctor for me or to disagree...
But I will have tough next weeks and months trying
to pull off a living again, so I won't have much time I guess.
So I wanted to flush this now where I feel there's quite momentum
and see if it's useful to the community.
Better making a fool of me than nagging myself with why I didn't do "it".
Please forgive the length.
Best wishes
fabio
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Pamela McLean <pamela.mclean@dadamac.net> Date: 28 October 2010 21:19
Subject: Re: [OK] Connecting the dots To:
openkollab@googlegroups.comFabio and all.
I appreciate this description of collaboration.
The fluidity and temporary nature of collaborative work seems to me to be well described. It certainly fits my experience of working collaboratively over the last ten years with people very separated by distance.
Analogy
I see collaboration as being a bit like a group of people being on a long journey - with more or less the same arrival point in mind. Sometimes individuals or groups join with others to travel together, sometimes they make their own way separately. Because the general direction of the journey is the same their paths often cross, they meet up for a while, share ideas and information, go on in the same or different ways, arranging the details of the kind of journeys along the way as and when opportunities arrive. I see it more like the journey of a whole group of independent back-packers, compared to the detailed structure of a long package holiday coach tour.
Collaborating to find out what people mean by collaboration
Fabio and I are presently both exploring our understanding of Collaboration compared with the understanding of others. I want to do it because I am new here. I don't know if its the right space for me or not. I was just going to lurk and find out, but now Fabio's opened the discussion I'm writing this to collaborate with him on exploring the meaning of collaboration to OK people so I can find out more quickly if I should stay
Collaboration happens because people want to cluster around an initiative for their own win -win reasons. If the win -wins work well then there is energy and things go forward, if not some drop out or hold back and some regrouping is needed. Sometimes the initiative is very fleeting - "rubbing minds" on an idea - like Fabio and me here exploring "collaboration" - sometimes it is something that lasts for years. The more honest and open people can be relating to small steps and win -wins the easier ti is to keep coming together in new groups and going apart again easily and comfortably. (Another analogy is like going to a barn dance - people keep grouping and re-grouping, deciding when they want join in - for a whole dance a a time - and when they don't.)
Pamela
This is a message from the OpenKollab Google Group located at
http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab?hl=en To post to this group, send email to
openkollab@googlegroups.com~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~