





Doug . . . This is fantastic! I have been reviewing similar tools for the Innovation Center we are creating at Children's Hospital Colorado in the Orthopedic Institute. The Innovation Center will facilitate clinician and staff development of ideas for improving patient care via novel services and products. This will be accomplished through collaboration with academic and industry partners, and by utilizing our number most valuable resource - our patients and their families. Do you have any suggestions for software that you think would be appropriate (since the Tube doesn't appear to be commercially available anytime soon)?
Thanks! - Tim
Doug:
Yes, good story and useful insights. But I 'm puzzled by the name chosen for the group. To me it indicates a closed system not one that gives incentive to collaborathe. Why not express with a word what the group does. I.e, Walter Gropius and the company he helped found, The Architects Collaborative.
Cheers,
Gio' Morse
Doug thanks for the story - lots of useful insight for an intra-company exercise or exchange to learn from.
I wonder if there are insights that could apply to the wider web community as well. I understand the desire to build depth into relationships within a known community as it helps the agents within the "system" to link, understand and respect each other - and this supports info transfer and growth. Ego is moderated enhanced understanding and trust. The problem with the wider web community is that the biggest blocker to passionate embrace is trust or perhaps more correctly the lack of trust. There is a lot of "fronting" and image maintenance on social network sites and a visit to many boards and chats soon reveals a lot of egos on display.
I an wondering if an opposite approach could work to some extent - the use of totally anonymous unattributed chat rooms (Each particpant is recognised simply by a color/font and Unique i.d. alpha/numeric code. Chatroom rules could focus discussion on the idea in addition to community feedback - with no reference to participant CVs, likes, dislikes etc to color the conversation or provide bias of information introduced into the conversation. The only feedback mechanism being provided over time directly by the community sharing the online environment.
I have been thinking about this because in numerous corporate environments that I have encountered around the world the nature of profiles, the definition of how people are viewed, is influenced by the bias of the environment designers and the gravity associated with comments and input is, I believe, seriously coloured by the apparent "expertise" and noteworthiness of the source.
For instance a great marketing idea could be introduced by a new cadet to the company but could be criticised by a long standing or senior team member which and his/her critique can have a strong influence over the group in many cultural settings (perhaps not IDEO which I wholly admire...). The idea can be lost because many participants don't wish to rock the boat or simply trust the experience of the senior member - mediocrity can be a powerful force in a herd setting.
Would IDEO ever consider a completely anonymous environment where ideas are championed and egos are submerged? I understand the need for personal attribution in order to incent participation, but that can come later once the idea has found its legs and a group has pinned their colour to its mast so to speak...
I would love to chat with you about this if you are ever available.
Regards
Gavin
Hey Doug,
Thanks for sharing, I'm always inspired by IDEO's push to collaborate and harness creativity.
Just came across this link from Alec Ross, thought it would be interesting to you.
Maybe IDEO should help the State Department take their collaboration to the next level?
http://www.businessofgovernment.org/blog/business-government/new-corrido...
All the best,
Richard
This is great - not compliance-driven, but inclusive.
A couple questions:
- Can an area be segmented off for a specific group - e.g., only those working on a confidential project having access?
- Can access to The Tube be shared across company boundaries - include the client team, for example?
Great story. Would love to know what tools, platforms, development resources The Tube is based on. Can you share? Thanks.
Thanks so much for sharing Doug. I enjoyed reading your story and the inspiring benefits that can flow from such a collaborative community. I just posted my latest submission/Story entitled, "The Power of a Peer Group: How come something so proven is not more pervasive, and what are we willing to do about it?" at: http://www.managementexchange.com/story/power-peer-group-how-come-someth...) and wondered what your thoughts are about the blending of these approaches (which i speak to in the Challenges & Solutions section - the 3rd challenge/solution). My sense is that they are additive, addressing overlapping and underlapping needs and neither is as powerful alone as they can be together. Welcome your thoughts. Thanks again for sharing. Best.
Hi Doug,
A great article.
As an advisor to a range of SME's in Australia, i have been trying to articulate the notion of an internal ongoing innovation workshop by the use of collaborative tools emerging from web 2.0.
Your article has just made the job easier for me, thanks.
Fantastic article, Doug. We're looking to create some collaborative structures at Brambles, and I am going to take your lessons to heart. Thanks
Hi Doug-- fascinating story... would love to see a screenshot or a video demo! Curious whether you built "the Tube" from scratch, or built it on top of an existing collaboration platform (e.g., Jive, Google Apps) .
Thanks,
Ryan
Thanks for providing so much information on your system. While creating content is good, the most difficult part in using similar Knowledge Systems is to be able to search the appropriate content quickly enough for our reference. How was this enhanced in your project?
Thanks in advance.
Regards
Madhu
David Arella
June 6, 2011 at 5:16pmDoug,
Congrats on capturing the intelligence of the whole group for the benefit of all. I appreciated your description of all the technologies you used and how you dealt with the concerns about adoption.
I have a suggestion on where to go next in response to what you said the team sees as "an increasing need for new functionality such as workflow tools, team staffing tools, customer relationship management tools, and others." Sharing information is foundational, but this alone does not produce action. Co-laboring is really about two or more people delivering some outcome together. So the next step is to introduce software that helps people create and track agreements to deliver.
Software for managing explicit, two-person conversations for action is coming which will improve coordination, visibility into execution, and accountability by presenting a clear picture of who will do what by when. One person (the requester) makes a specific request of someone else (the performer). The performer is obliged to make an explicit response, i.e. agree to deliver on the request, decline, or make a counter-offer. Presenting the performer with the opportunity to negotiate their delivery commitment clarifies ownership and assures accountability, not to mention increases the likelihood that the delivery will be made on time. The whole organization can be seen as a network of these conversations around negotiated commitments. The principles are the same whether individuals make requests or each other, departments make requests of other departments, or the CEO makes requests of Vice Presidents.
Commitment based management has been described as the most important new management principle to emerge in the last several decades. These simple, but profound innovations in work management have been profiled in the Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan Management Review, and the Wall Street Journal. These innovations will also disrupt current top-down/command-and-control work norms and increase trust by capturing performance metrics and exposing patterns of behavior. Check out my blog (4spires.com/blog) if you'd like to learn more.
Keep up the good work!
David