Laboranova Meeting Notes Monday July 10 INSEAD Participants Insead: Albert, Thierry, Eleni, Alicia, Pradeep Kartoo: Nicolas Baleydier and Patrick Dumas BIBA: Alexander Hesmer UBC: Esteve Almirall and Steve Willmott University of Dauphine: Anne Jubert and Emmanuel Josserand LivingLab Denmark: Max Moller Agilience: Olivier Raiman Morning session 10h30 – 13h30 1. Introduction, participants & expertise: Agilience- expert location agents, content analysis of emails to map connections between people. UBC- Social networking, knowledge and agents, distributed AI, web services and building service-oriented systems- infrastructure and integration & extension of people working together in networks. Also responsible for LivingLab dimension. LearningLab Denmark- Coordinators. Games for learning and working. Involved in Change Masters as well. U. Dauphine- Collaboration, IT and management. Innovation scoreboard- focus on measurement, what to visualize, what to measure. Responsible for internal communication and KM, project managent and dissemination. Kartoo- Responsible for visualization, software-based mapping of information and people. Insead- role is on games + support to other WPs from a user perspective, c.f. content in Laboranova wiki. Insead not responsible for management (which will be in the hands of UoD, LLD and UoN) UON- no representative 2. SP4 Connection Space overview and roles: WP 4.1 Connection Space Look at basic questions about connection space (Albert) To date, we have taken a design perspective. Recommend taking a user perspective by clarifying what the connection space is, who the users are, what the user sees, what the user experiences, how to motivate collaborative innovative processes.. c.f. Laboranova wiki as a first step towards shared knowledge space www.calt.insead.edu/LivingLab/Labornova/Wiki/index.php Agenda item 1: Users, from the user’ perspective Who are the users ? In what contexts? educational vs organizational vs community, etc What drives participation and involvement in the CS? Motivational aspect. How to best measure satisfaction and value for and by the user? Agenda item 2: Lay of the land, again, from the user perspective What does the environment look like? What features, what support services, etc? Key characteristics, components users will interact with? Key dynamics and events determining the life cycle--- non connected people/ideas in and connected people/ideas out Agenda item 3: User experience within CS What are the key events from the first time a person enters into the CS through different states of experience (segmentation of users)- lurkers, guru, etc Additionally, what are the different ways to experience these states The Selfish Gene (book from the UK, Richard Dawkins)- who selects whothe individual selecting the ideas or the ideas selecting the appropriate people ? Related to games and competition, with different ideas competing for recognition The Selfish Meme- genes as ideas (Esteve) Social world compared to the biological world, with the former having a purpose. Selection of best fitness. Conditions for the evolution and selection of ideas. (Olivier) Issue of attention- ideas will be competing for attention Agenda item 4: CS Types Sametime, same place vs anytime anyplace- definition of CS contexts Categories of connection space Agenda item 5: CS, in relation to other Laboranova spaces What distinguishes CS from other spaces? What is the relationship of CS to other spaces? (Max) users themselves may not make the explicit distinction between ideation, connection, evaluation space- final space will be a more seamless experience with spaces differentiated only for EC/Consortium purposes (Albert) Suggest metaphor of a toolkit rather than a step like process or distinct spaces- people use the features when they want and can pick and chose according to need and are not required to follow a specified route. Discussion (Max) Regarding measurement: innovation scoreboard is not measuring the value of the idea but of the user experience. Caution against considering an idea as fixed rather than being flexible. (Olivier) Something to consider. Ideas and knowledge gets stolen and transformed, and innovated (built upon)- i.e. transformative process. (Max)- The process of SP 4 is itself an innovative process of generating ideas and trying to converge at a common understanding. Instead of trying to solve all the questions we have at this moment, we should document the process, and use this experience as a point for reflection. (Thierry)- What about focusing on on-demand and emergent creation of spaces to support innovation process, instead of predetermined ‘ideation’, ‘connection’ and ‘evaluation’ spaces? Users themselves create spaces as they see fit, with the CS supporting the process. (Olivier)- Something to consider is the issue of time and constraints of time to the game (as part of a project’s life cycle). (Max)- Regarding EC obligations, we have 8 months to deliver a concept document (for divergent tasks) and we don’t move into the convergence and selection phase until month 9. Should take advantage of this time to explore different ideas and not narrow our focus too soon, too quickly. Ideation (divergence)- Connection (transition phase between divergence and convergence)- Evaluation (convergence) (Anna) Focus on the flow of ideas. Metaphor of the toolbox is too static. Role is to facilitate process and action. For example, create a demo room to make visible connections as well as results. 3. Agenda items 2, 3 and 4 3.1 What is the connection space? I am entering into this space, what do I see as a user? Key inputs and connections bewteen: ideas, people and networks, dynamics and knowledge assets (refer to Copenhagen notes) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. People Ideas- can lead to projects, which are goal directed activities Projects Knowledge assets Tools Other resources- time, money (Steve & Max) Keep in mind that there are different levels within each of the events listed above. (Max) Suggests leaving it up to the users to define what an idea or a project is, instead of pre-defining it. When we have an idea, we can have different ways in which users will use or transform an idea- the CS should support the emergence of such processes, i.e. user-driven approach. (Albert) What are the minimal characteristics for the initial acknowledgement that an idea is an idea? How to match a person introducing an idea and the resources that are available in the CS? What are the criteria for positioning a user within this space ? (Max) goal is to develop a system to be used within the same company to help develop their internal innovation projects, i.e. organizational tools adjusted to culture of the company. A policy and not technology choice. Not an open source project but the LivingLab is a public open space. (Albert) Is there a template for an idea? Or a filtering mechanism? Balance between too many and too few ideas. (Steve) Template is the process of idea development and diffusion (Max) Getting users to apply their own categories rather than assessing the validity of an idea- again, echoing the bottom-up approach. (Steve) www.memepool.com- unregulated submission of ideas by anyone (Olivier) What is the first experience of the user when he enters? (Thierry) First define the objectives of the CS- identify relevant people, form a common understanding, formation of groups, etc. 3.2 What is the motivation for entering and remaining within the connection space? (Albert) Why would people enter the CS? Come in touch with new ideas To develop an idea or apply to other domain, contexts Collaborate on interesting ideas To social network and meet smart people Look for expertise Looking for solutions to a problem Recognition, reputation Contribution to a company’s innovation processes 3.3 How to measure value generated from the CS experience? Possible measurement criteria : # connections before and after an experience value of the connections what are the different types of connections perceived value by users, user satisfaction (input from others) reaching ideal network configurations (Esteve) Value of the CS process is context dependent- it depends on what the objectives of the players are. Will the CS be used to instigate connections within a company or to be used by a company to connect others outside of the company- c.f. companies as networks (Thierry) Cautions against too many choices and too many groups which can decrease performance 4. Presentation by Steve on ‘Ideas’ Motivation- Laboranova will provide tools to support innovation processes Key question is how will ideas be represented? Idea as part of a network of ideas- how to represent this network From an infrastructure point of view- how to organize and manage ideas to allow for matches, connections with one another and to people. Afternoon session 15h-18h30 5. Brainstorming on agenda items 2, 3, and 4 on the Groups System 6. Administrative issues 6.1 Internal communication 6.1.1 Decide on an internal communication process and frequency of communication Compile and send out a SP 4 mailing list (responsible: Rachel) Fill in wiki page of contact details + skype address www.calt.insead.edu/LivingLab/Labornova/Wiki/index.php Document management: Current wiki only allows upload of documents that already exist on a url page (Thierry) Steve recommends a shift to another wiki- and to stick to one wiki and not multiple tools (Max). Also to keep in mind the issue of future migration of data to other platforms. 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.1.4 (Olivier) Management should make the decision on communication medium instead of discussing the issue at current meeting. (Max) Would prefer a more bottom-up approach but if all partners agree then management will make a decision. For the next 2-3 months at least, partners will make do with email and wiki as primary form of communication + occasional phone conferences for status updates. 6.2 Deliverables 6.2.1 18 months plan In 18 months, SP 4 is responsible for 4 deliverables with four different partners responsible for each. All partners expected to contributed to deliverable 4.1 (Concept document) UoN role and participation, who is leader of WP 4.1. (Max) recommends that we have until month 8 to produce a concept document so this should be the time for expansive knowledge gathering and idea generation. After which the group will have 4 months for convergence purposes. Deadlines: o Draft Table of Contents by end July o Extension of Table of Contents (i.e. paragraphs associated to each item) by Sept 14. Meetings: o Skype meeting August 15 14H-16H o Skype meeting September 18 14H-16H o Next general Laboranova meeting October 18-20 in Barcelona 7. Agilience presentation on email mining and people connection Agilience provides several innovation support to accelerate best practice processes through email mining and matching people based on email content. The technology is implemented within a company to support the connections among individuals within that company. The overall goal is to reduce search and connection costs. Process: User enters search query Agent returns with a list of matches of experts or brokers to contact Brokers are pointers to other relevant contacts Additionally, agents learn from the referral behavior of system users, for example if person X’s query pulls up a default contact person, the contact person may then transfer the email to someone else. This associated will be recorded by the system for future reference. Agents are stored on the server and to date, search boundaries are within a company (i.e. no crawlers to the WWW at the moment) How to integrate this system to the Connection Space? Locate people with particular expertise Cross enterprise competency center For location of field innovation and best practices 8. Brainstorming on examples of connection spaces Existing connection spaces Professional networking sites, e.g. LinkIn Sourceforge, opensource communities KnowledgeBoard.com Connection Yayhooray.com Innocentive.com CS Dating sites, e.g. Friendster Wikipedia Blogs, e.g. Blogger.com Collaboration Collaborative filtering, e.g. LivePlasma, Amazon.com Discovery “are blogs and wikis connection spaces?” Most popular blog is blogger.com (Steve) they connect people to content and content to content especially by using trackback. (Albert) Yes if they reduce the search costs matching people to content. (Max) Wikipedia is not a connection space but a knowledge repository (Albert) Yes but contributing to it I get to know people that have already contributed, I am linked to a social process… Other examples: ICQ, Myspace (mainly to promote music) and facebook especially from mouth to mouth (Albert) Can we have something like wikipedia on innovation? (a simple idea in an innovation context) 9. Brainstorming on measurement and evaluation How are we going to measure the success? (Albert) o By measuring the created connections, we could start from patterns as Emmanuel suggested. o By increasing the number of relevant questions because there is no need to connect everything with everyone… o By measuring the “stickiness” of a user What are the minimal features of ideas? (Albert) Under which features an idea is called something differently than an idea? (ex. Project) What will be allowed to enter the evaluation space? (Max) Everything. A user should define a short summary, a tag line, a text description with definition of target, specifications… (Albert) We need a template to define what an idea should have as facets. (Max) But we should not force people to respect the template. From the presentation Esteve and Steve will generate discussion on how the term can evolve. (Esteve) How do we make this attractive? Representation? (Albert) We are looking for the formal dimension internally but the user does not have to be confronted to a template. (Esteve) We need to start defining the components internally. Bubbles and connections like a concept map. Apart from the individual level there is the aggregation level. What is the term used for a group of ideas? (Albert) (Thierry) Ontologies…but it is a real pain on design because you need to be an expert to design ontologies (Albert) What is a person in a context focusing on innovation? We need two templates for the ideas and for the persons. We do not need to invent something for the knowledge assets. (Max) Why a template of ideas and not for knowledge assets? (Albert) Because a knowledge asset is static but an idea is more dynamic, is evolving and we want to assess them… We don’t need to be rigid just formalize what we are talking about (Thierry) Ex. Tagging and folksonomies, the structure is going to emerge organically, people are going to mimic.. (Esteve) But you do not have enough people for tagging in a context of a small company. Issue of critical mass in order for these methods to produce meaningful collective information. (Albert) There will be a template that can be used ex. for ideas: 1) you need an identity (ex. url) 2) there are some specific purposes, define some structure. Define the minimal formal representation of an idea through a process of connection. Connected ideas will bring higher value. In the ideation space is someone working on that in a company context? (when does an email become an idea?) (Steve) the idea is to have a structure that helps us process ideas when they are expressed ex. a webpage. If you choose a certain structure your choice will have an impact. Something has to be explicit for automatic processing. Ex. blogs are easy to recognize although there are million of templates (template as a visual representation) (Thierry) What if a number of blog users export RSS feeds and use it in another context? (Albert) The data structure will be extensible but minimal definition needed for 1) text, 2) target specification and 3) reference. Basic concern is formal representations. (Patrick) For example a French company uses anonymous postings for improvement because of fear of management. (Albert) So we all agree that an idea has a source. And a source can be a whole community. We should start reasoning about the source of an idea. And keep it open because things will evolve progressively. We should also cross-confront our view to the other packages… The End